BY EMMA PETER, ABUJA
The Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) has called for greater emphasis on preventive strategies, institutional safeguards and innovative measures to tackle corruption before it develops into full-blown corrupt practices.
The Commission’s Chairman, Dr. Musa Adamu Aliyu, SAN, made the call on Tuesday in Abuja at the Fourth International Diplomatic Dialogue organised by the Anti-Corruption Academy of Nigeria (ACAN), the research and training arm of the ICPC.
According to a press statement made available to journalists by the Head, Media and Public Communications of the ICPC, J. Okor Odey, the dialogue was themed, “Development of Anti-Corruption Strategies and Policies: The Russian National Experience.”
The event featured the Minister Counsellor/Charge d’Affaires of the Embassy of the Russian Federation in Nigeria, Mr. Igor Ivannikov, who presented insights into Russia’s experience in developing and implementing preventive, legal and enforcement measures against corruption.
Aliyu said corruption remained a major obstacle to development, stressing the need for anti-corruption institutions to continuously explore practical approaches capable of strengthening institutions, promoting transparency and accountability, and rebuilding public trust.
“As Nigeria continues to deepen its anti-corruption efforts, there is much value in learning from comparative experiences, understanding best practices, and identifying innovative approaches that can be adapted to our local realities,” the ICPC chairman said.
He urged participants to convert the knowledge gained from the diplomatic engagement into practical measures that would strengthen institutions and improve anti-corruption outcomes.
“The knowledge and experience shared today should not end within the walls of this auditorium. Rather, they should inspire practical actions that strengthen our institutions, enhance public trust, and contribute to national and continental development,” Aliyu added.
Speaking on the Russian experience, Ivannikov said an effective anti-corruption framework must go beyond punishing offences after they have been committed by also addressing the conditions and institutional weaknesses that create opportunities for corruption.
He identified income and asset declaration by designated categories of public officials, expenditure monitoring and conflict-of-interest prevention among the preventive mechanisms deployed in Russia.
According to him, financial declarations provide authorities with an opportunity to compare the legitimate earnings of public officials with their actual financial and property holdings, thereby helping to identify potential irregularities.
The Russian diplomat also highlighted the anti-corruption review of legislation, explaining that the process is designed to identify provisions that could create opportunities for corrupt practices, particularly excessive official powers, unjustified discretion and unclear administrative procedures.
On public procurement, Ivannikov said Russia had increasingly relied on digital platforms and risk-based monitoring to improve transparency in procurement and contract administration.
He, however, noted that digitalisation alone could not eradicate corruption, stressing the importance of effective oversight, access to information and accountability for violations.
He further identified institutional measures such as codes of ethics, conflict-of-interest procedures, designated anti-corruption compliance officers and regular corruption-risk assessments as key elements of a preventive framework.
The Russian diplomat also outlined the enforcement component of the country’s anti-corruption system, including investigation of corruption-related offences, tracing and freezing of illicit assets, prosecution and judicial determination of cases.
Earlier, the Provost of ACAN, Professor Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim, provided an overview of the development of Russia’s anti-corruption legal and institutional framework.
Ibrahim identified the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, Code of Administrative Offences, Federal Law on Civil Service and Federal Law on Combating Corruption as some of the key laws underpinning the country’s anti-corruption architecture.
He also listed several institutions involved in Russia’s anti-corruption system, including the Presidential Council for Countering Corruption, Presidential Civil Service, Personnel and Anti-Corruption Directorate, Prosecutor General’s Office, Investigative Committee, Ministry of Justice, Federal Security Service, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Accounts Chamber.
The ACAN Provost particularly highlighted the role of the Prosecutor General’s Office, noting that specialised units responsible for supervising the implementation of anti-corruption legislation were established within the Office and prosecutors’ offices at constituent-entity level in 2007.
He linked the development to Article 36 of the United Nations Convention against Corruption.
Ibrahim further highlighted Russia’s contribution to the establishment and continued support of the International Anti-Corruption Academy, stressing the importance of specialised training and institutional capacity development in sustaining anti-corruption efforts.
The diplomatic dialogue, according to the ICPC, provided an opportunity for participants to examine lessons from Russia’s anti-corruption experience and consider approaches that could be adapted to strengthen preventive and enforcement mechanisms in Nigeria.
