This report presents the findings of a political economy analysis (PEA) on asset declaration in Nigeria. The PEA focused on the asset declaration process in Nigeria with a view to assessing how asset declaration data is managed, the opportunities for reform of the process, and the degree to which asset declaration is analysed for trends in compliance levels.

1. Political Economy Analysis (PEA) of Asset Declaration in Nigeria
Prepared by: Gerald Ogoko

2. Report
Political Economy Analysis (PEA) of Asset Declaration in Nigeria
For enquires about this report:
Organization: Gerald & Jeremy Concept Limited
Address: No. 9 Musa Sada Street, Katsina Estate, Kafe District, Abuja FCT
Tel: +234-8163700245
Email: Research [info@geraldandjeremy.com] OR Gerald Ogoko [gerald.ogoko@gmail.com]
© 2020

3. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abbreviations and Acronyms…………………………………………..………..…….…..…… 1
Executive Summary…………………………………………………………..…….…....……... 2
1. Background of Study…………………………..…………………........…….….…..………. 4
1.1 Objectives of the Study………..……………………………………………………………. 4
1.2 Scope of the Study………………………………………………………………………….. 4
1.3 Methodology for the Assignment………………………………………………………….. 4
2. Asset Declaration in Nigeria: Rationale, Trend, Structure and Stakeholders………….. 5
3. Institutional Framework for Asset Declaration in Nigeria………………………………… 9
3.1 Asset Declaration Landscape in Nigeria: Overview…………………………………….. 9
3.1.1 Thematic Thrusts of Asset Declaration………………………………………………… 11
3.1.2 Dimensions of Asset Declaration in Nigeria…………………………………………… 12
3.1.3 Main Actors Involved in the Asset Declaration Process……………………………... 13
3.2 Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB)…………………………………………………………... 18
3.2.1 Strengthening the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB)…………………………………… 19
3.2.2 Framework for Managing and Reporting Asset Declaration Information…………… 20
4. Strategic Recommendations……………………………...……………………………….… 22
Annex A: Organization Structure of the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB)………………….. 24

4. -1-
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ADF Asset Declaration Forms
AML Anti-Money Laundering Legislation
CAC Corporate Affairs Commission
CADF Completed Asset Declaration Forms
CCB Code of Conduct Bureau
CCT Code of Conduct Tribunal
CISLAC Civil Society Legislative and Advocacy Centre
CSO Civil Society Organizations
EFCC Economic and Financial Crimes Commission
ERP Enterprise Resource Planning
ICPC Independent Corrupt Practices Commission
IMF International Monetary Fund
IT Information Technology
NFIU Nigeria Financial Intelligence Unit
NOA National Orientation Agency
OSIWA Open Society Initiative for West Africa
PEA Political Economy Analysis
PLAC Policy and Legislative Advocacy Centre
SERAP Social and Economic Rights Accountability Programme
STR Suspicious Transaction Reports
UN United Nations

5. -2-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the findings of a political economy analysis (PEA) on asset declaration in
Nigeria. The PEA focused on the asset declaration process in Nigeria with a view to assessing
how asset declaration data is managed, the opportunities for reform of the process, and the
degree to which asset declaration is analysed for trends in compliance levels.
In carrying out the PEA, desk reviews of documents from the CCB alongside other publications
were carried out together with discussions with CCB officials in its head office in Abuja. The desk
reviews and engagements with CCB officials highlighted challenges inhibiting smooth
management of the asset declaration process in Nigeria, and also identified opportunities and
entry points for effective delivery of the expected technical assistance to the CCB in the area of
data management and reporting. The data management and reporting element of the asset
declaration process is the main thrust of the PEA especially as it is at the core of efforts aimed at
strengthening the process in Nigeria.
Some of the typical challenges inhibiting the CCB’s capacity to effectively deliver its mandate
include: funding constraints; weak manpower capacity to effectively analyse, investigate and
verify the information in asset declaration forms submitted by public officials; weak data
management systems considering that asset declaration process is largely paper-based in nature;
undue interference from the executive branch as the CCB can be used as a tool by the ruling
administration to hound perceived political opponents; a culture where departments responsible
for investigating and verifying asset declaration information require directives from above to carry
out their roles and responsibilities; and the narrow and conservative interpretation of its mandates
and powers despite the provisions of Paragraph 3(c), part 1 of the 3rd
Schedule to the 1999
Constitution. With respect to weak data management capacity, the CCB is currently carrying out
an organizational change management program that is hinged on migrating paper-based
processes to IT or online-based systems. Consequently, a contract was recently awarded to
Galaxy Backbone Limited to procure hardware infrastructure (i.e. secure servers and network
infrastructure), which would form the basis for other process-based transformation activities
including Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems for operating the CCB’s core internal
organizational processes.
A key finding from engagements with the CCB is that the contract to Galaxy does not include the
software components such as the required ERP systems. Although some private sector
organizations have proposed ERP systems for the CCB, limited funding has hindered the
implementation of this software-based phase which is required to complement the deliverables
from Galaxy. The CCB appreciates the need for a comprehensive ERP system which would
include the creation of an online portal where public officials can declare their assets.
The recommendations outlined in this report will support of use to a number of stakeholders within
the Code of Conduct sector such as CCB, CSOs and generally citizens:
 Engage with high-level CCB officials to build buy-in and strengthen ease of access for the
intervention. One of the effective ways of approaching this is for the CCB to involve some
CSOs in some sessions of its retreat. This retreat provides a unique opportunity for CSOs
to engage with CCB decision-makers and possibly make inputs to their workplan and other
programmatic initiatives designed to strengthen the asset declaration process in Nigeria.
 Organize campaigns to enlighten citizens on the asset declaration process including
highlighting frameworks that they can leverage to track the asset declaration of their
political representatives

6. -3-
 Create a coordination platform to strengthen the effectiveness of asset declaration
monitoring and investigation of public officers’ asset declaration process. This coordination
platform should include the CCB, the EFCC, and the ICPC.
 CSOs should come together to advocate, build the critical mass and engage with the
National Assembly and Federal Ministry of Justice to press for reforms to the asset
declaration legislation especially those dealing with provisions around compliance and
disclosure of public officers’ asset declaration information
 Asset verification can be expensive hence, the need for these agencies to collaborate with
the citizenry and civil society to reduce the burden of asset verification and investigation.
CSOs could also advocate for improved funding for the CCB, where necessary, to
strengthen its capacity to enforce the existing provisions of the CCB Act. The National
Assembly has high power and high influence given their law-making responsibilities.
Advocacy to the National Assembly to strengthen the provisions of the CCB Act especially
around access to/public disclosure of asset declaration information and the independence
of the CCB process.
 The backend for the online portal –a component of the proposed ERP system- should be
such that it caters to the collection and appropriate categorization of relevant data points
for asset declaration. Furthermore, the backend database should contain inbuilt
algorithms/commands for different types of time-driven analysis. Some of these data
points are highlighted in the report
 The scope of work of any future contract awarded for the establishment of ERP solutions
should include the digitization of previously submitted asset declaration forms. This is
needed to build sufficient information to carry out any meaningful trend analysis in asset
declaration
 Broad ownership by staff of ongoing and future IT interventions is critical for the success
of ongoing digitization initiatives. Staff must be carried along throughout the process so
that when these materialize, they are prepared and equipped to adapt accordingly.
Consequently, effective communication from top management is critical for the success
of such interventions

7. -4-
1. Background of Study
While Nigeria has domesticated the asset declaration regime in accordance with international
Conventions on Corruption, there are still challenges that limit its effectiveness in Nigeria. This
study seeks to explore the landscape of asset declaration in Nigeria coupled with strengthening
the role of the CCB in administering the asset declaration process in Nigeria. Specifically, this
study seeks to support CCB to identify gaps in the process that limit its effectiveness as a tool for
strengthening accountability and transparency in public governance. The findings of this study
also aids stakeholders (media and citizens’ groups/civic actors in asset declaration) to better
support the work of the CCB in making policy recommendations to the Government.
1.1 Objective(s) of the Study
The objective of the study is to conduct a baseline study on the Political Economy Analysis (PEA)
of assets declaration forms for public dissemination of trends. It examines the asset declaration
environment in Nigeria tracking how it has evolved over time. The study also looks at the
institutional environment of asset declaration in Nigeria, identifying gaps in its effectiveness and
reasons why it has failed to meet expectations in terms of strengthening accountability and
transparency in public sector governance. Critical stakeholders of asset declaration in Nigeria are
also identified together with examining their respective roles in strengthening its effectiveness.
The study also examined the role of the CCB in the asset declaration process including examining
how effective it has been in administering and managing the asset declaration process in Nigeria.
It concludes by highlighting recommendations for strengthening asset declaration in Nigeria.
1.2 Scope of Work
This assignment is a political economy analysis of assets declaration forms for public
dissemination of trends, to provide information to decision makers on the impact of the analytical
report on Citizens, and how that can inform the expansion and interpretation of the Code of
Conduct Bureau’s mandate. Specifically, the research achieved the following:
1. Design a suitable methodology to collect data, analyze and present it in a form that serves the
purpose of the assignment.
2. Identify and examine the relevant dimensions of political economy of Nigeria in relation to
assets declaration.
3. To ascertain how well the CCB understands and discharges its role and constitutional mandate
with respect to asset declaration.
4. Identify and examine the role of stakeholders with respect to the asset declaration process in
Nigeria.
5. To identify specific interventions needed to support and strengthen the CCB.
6. To explore collaborative mechanisms between different relevant state institutions for
strengthening the asset declaration process in Nigeria.
1.3 Methodology for the Assignment
The qualitative approach was used to carry out the PEA of asset declaration in Nigeria. The
qualitative approach consisted of Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) with senior officials of the CCB
to gather in-depth information around the procedures for declaration, verification of declarations,
sanctions for violations, public access, and system assessment. The KIIs also aided in identifying
specific interventions needed to support and strengthen the CCB. The secondary data, on the
other hand, consisted of constitutional documents governing the CCB, internal documents
obtained from the CCB, the asset declaration form, comparative studies and assessments on
asset declaration conducted by local and international organizations. The information obtained

8. -5-
from these sources were used to generate useful insights on the asset declaration environment
in Nigeria including identifying pointers for strengthening its effectiveness.
2. Asset Declaration in Nigeria: Rationale, Trend, Structure and Stakeholders
2.1 Rationale and Trend of Asset Declaration in Nigeria
Asset declaration is a tool for transparency and accountability in public sector governance that
entails getting public officials to make known to established authorities the value of their wealth
and assets prior to resuming public office and after exiting office.1
The process of asset
declaration helps prevent abuse of power, reduce corruption and increase public accountability,
public trust in government institutions and government legitimacy. Asset declaration is a tool for
transparency and accountability in public sector governance that entails getting public officials to
make known to established authorities the value of their wealth and assets prior to resuming
public office and after exiting office.2
The process of asset declaration helps prevent abuse of
power, reduce corruption and increase public accountability, public trust in government institutions
and government legitimacy. Regulations and laws governing asset declaration can help to prevent
conflicts of interest among public officials. Such regulations also increase the transparency of
decision-making processes, and thereby lays the foundation for accountability of public office
holders for their actions.
Disclosure of assets also helps in providing a baseline and means of comparison to identify assets
that may have been corruptly acquired and that a public official may legitimately be asked to
account for. Furthermore, an effective disclosure system can form the basis for successfully
enforcing criminal and other legal anti-corruption provisions. They can also help heads of public
institutions prevent conflicts of interest among their employees and to address such situations
when they arise, in order to promote integrity within their institutions. Asset declaration can also
be used to monitor variations in the wealth and assets of politicians and civil servants, so as to
discourage them from misconduct and protect them from false accusations, and to help clarify the
full scope of illicit enrichment or other illegal activity by providing additional evidence.
Globally, asset declaration has become a critical anti-corruption issue, as evidenced by its
inclusion in the UN Convention Against Corruption, which notes that:
“Each State Party shall endeavor, where appropriate and in accordance with the fundamental
principles of its domestic law, to establish measures and mechanisms requiring public office
holders to make declarations to appropriate authorities regarding, inter alia, their outside
activities, employment, investments, assets and substantial gifts or benefits from which a
conflict of interest may result with respect to their functions as public officials”.3
Similarly, to the UN Convention Against Corruption, Article 7 Paragraph 1 of the AU Convention
on Preventing and Combatting Corruption notes that:
“All or designated public officials must commit to declaring their assets at the time of
assumption of office during and after their term of office in the public services.”4
Again, the ECOWAS Protocol on the Fight against Corruption notes mandates member states to:
“implement policies that oblige public officials to disclose assets, liabilities and copies of their
income tax returns. The disclosure results should be extended to at least the spouses and
1
Transparency International, African experience of asset declarations. Anti-Corruption Resource Centre Expert Report, April 2018.
2
Transparency International, African experience of asset declarations. Anti-Corruption Resource Centre Expert Report, April 2018.
3
United Nations Convention Against Corruption, Article 8.5 (October 2003)
4
African Union (AU) Convention on Preventing and Combatting Corruption, Article 7.1

9. -6-
dependent children of the public officials. Provisions should be made to ensure that the
information provided shall not be misused”.5
2.2 Structure/Mechanism of Asset Declaration in Nigeria
Nigeria is a signatory to both UN and ECOWAS Conventions on anti-corruption. Consequently,
all public officials (i.e. politicians and civil servants) in Nigeria are expected to declare their assets
prior to and after their term in office. Furthermore, as a signatory, the government is expected to
establish an asset declaration regime in addition to strengthening mechanisms for ensuring
compliance by public officials and applying punitive measures for non-compliance. While Nigeria
has established a national asset declaration regime –through the CCB Act that establishes the
CCB- in compliance with both Conventions, concerns have been raised about its effectiveness in
dissuading public officials from misappropriating or diverting public resources. Investigations and
prosecutions by the Economic & Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) continue to unearth the
depth of corruption in public service under past and previous administrations in Nigeria. Instances
of the level of corruption in the public sector are provided subsequently in this report.
There are two main approaches of operationalizing national asset declaration regimes: single and
specialist approaches.6
The single approach is where one asset declaration system is used for
the three arms of government both at the federal and state levels. Nigeria employs the ‘single’
approach where the CCB is responsible for administering the asset declaration process for
officials of the three arms of government at the federal and state levels. On the other hand, the
specialist approach is one where an arm of government has its own specialist agency or
department responsible for administering the asset declaration as is the case in some European
Countries such as the United Kingdom where the asset declaration of Members of Parliament
(MPs) is handled by a Special Parliament Committee. Arguments for and against can be made
for both approaches. In the case of Nigeria, the centralized approach makes it challenging to
ensure compliance at the state levels.7
Some of the challenges of the ‘single’ approach are
encapsulated in the challenges faced by the CCB. These are discussed subsequently in this
report.
Regulations and laws governing asset declaration can help to prevent conflicts of interest among
public officials. Such regulations also increase the transparency of decision-making processes,
and thereby lays the foundation for accountability of public office holders for their actions.
Disclosure of assets helps in providing a baseline and means of comparison to identify assets
that may have been corruptly acquired and that a public official may legitimately be asked to
account for. Furthermore, an effective disclosure system can form the basis for successfully
enforcing criminal and other legal anti-corruption provisions.
The scope of disclosure requirements varies across different countries. While some countries
prefer to restrict the process to senior office holders or those in sensitive positions, others require
disclosure by less senior public officials more generally. In Nigeria, for instance, one of the
challenges with the process concerns underlying ambiguities associated with the definition of who
a ‘public officer’ is. This underlying ambiguity presents challenges to effective tracking of
compliance coupled with the potential for governments to arbitrary exploit the process against
perceived political opponents.
5
ECOWAS Protocol on the Fight Against Corruption, Article 5(g)
6
OECD, Asset declarations for public officials: a tool to prevent corruption. Research Report, 2011. Accessed from:
http://www.oecd.org/daf/anti-bribery/47489446.pdf [20 March 2020]
7
Lawal, I., B., Public declaration of assets in Nigeria: conflict or synergy between law and morality? African Human Rights Law
Journal, vol. 9(1) pp.224-261, 2009.

10. -7-
Despite its perceived usefulness as a potent anti-corruption tool, it is equally necessary to note
that the asset disclosure process is not without its disadvantages. For one, financial disclosure
cannot deter public officials determined to accept bribes, award themselves public contracts, or
otherwise loot the public purse. What it can do is to deter the less determined, those tempted to
steal from the public purse but fearful that their wrongdoing might later be revealed. Weak
enforcement of extant penalties for cases of non-compliance and situations where unexplained
wealth has been identified also hampers the effectiveness of the process. Another disadvantage
of the asset declaration process concerns ‘cost’; there is first the administrative burden that it puts
on government especially as significant human resources are required to process and maintain
disclosure forms. This is the case in Nigeria where those expected to disclose their assets across
the 36 states are about 1mn public officials across the federal, state and local government levels
including those in civil service, elected officials, appointed officials, special assistants etc.8
Again,
there are also concerns that the disclosure process may deter capable and qualified individuals
from vying for public offices as some individuals prefer to keep their financial affairs private.
Certain individuals may not want other people to know that in a country with high poverty levels,
they have still managed to amass significant wealth. Having provided a rationale for asset
declaration by public office holders, the next section narrows the discussion to the asset
declaration process in Nigeria with particular attention on relevant dimensions, available data on
the process, and incentives/drivers for compliance by public office holders.
According to the Fifth schedule to the Constitution,9
all “public officers”, whether at the local, state,
or federal level, must declare their assets immediately after taking office, every four years
thereafter, and again at the end of their terms/service. The CCB is responsible for receiving and
analyzing completed asset declaration forms, but must currently do so on a confidential basis,
thereby limiting the potential for civil society organizations and members of the public to identify,
and draw the CCB’s attention to, assets that have not been declared- or that have not been
declared accurately. Moreover, the current forms lack fields to capture certain highly relevant
information, such as sources of income, beneficially-owned assets, or personal property above a
certain value.
The CCB board is the overarching and most influential organ of the organization and consists of
the Chairman and six Federal Commissioners. The federal commissioners represent the six
geopolitical regions of the country in line Federal Character doctrine of the federal republic of
Nigeria. The CCB also consists of seven directorates each headed by a director. The seven
directorates/departments are as follows:
- Internal Audit
- Public Relations
- Legal
- Bureau Information System Centre
- Administration and Finance
- Asset Declaration
- Investigation and Monitoring Department
- Education and Advisory Services
The board are influential members of the CCB and is key to strengthening the asset declaration
process in Nigeria. They set the strategic direction of the organization and as such, their buy-in is
critical for interventions seeking to strengthen the information management and data reporting
processes for the asset declaration process. In addition to the need for close engagement with
the Board Chairman, who is the leading authority of the organization, another member of the
8
Code of Conduct Bureau, Policy Brief 2014
9
1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria

11. -8-
board who could act as a champion for strengthening the asset declaration process at the board
level is Professor Samuel Folorunsho Ogundare who is from Oyo state and represents the South
West geopolitical region. Professor Ogundare has published and presented papers on socio-
cultural transformation is regarded as an authority in social studies; consequently, as an
academic, he stands out as a potential champion for asset declaration reforms and organizational
strengthening at the board level. From an operational and organizational perspective, the director
of the asset declaration department and the director of the investigation and monitoring
department are also important internal stakeholders for CSOs to effectively interface with the CCB
to support institutional strengthening interventions especially as it relates to information
management, data analysis and reporting on the asset declaration information from public
officials. Both departments provided some of the information provided in this report including
details about the contract to Galaxy Backbone to digitize asset declaration processes and
procedures.
As a central tool in the anti-corruption fight, the CCB enjoys certain advantages among which is
its constitutional authority hence, the constitutionality of its mandate cannot be challenged.
Secondly, the Officers of the Code of Conduct Bureau or the Code of Conduct Tribunal have
secured tenures under the constitution, which ought to make them independent or impartial.
Regarding the second advantage, the impartiality of the head of CCB is open to debate as
experience highlights the tendency for officials of the CCB to be influenced by the existing
administration especially those in the executive arm. For instance, questions have been raised
regarding the underlying motives behind the investigation of the former Senate President, Bukola
Saraki under the Buhari Administration. Some public policy analysts opine that the CCB appeared
to be used as a tool to facilitate the government’s intentions of removing the Senate President at
the time. Another advantage that ought to be enjoyed by the CCB is that the Code of Conduct
should not be subject to criminal or civil immunity for the President, Vice-President, Governors
and Deputy Governors under Section 308 of the Constitution. Unfortunately, an Abuja High Court
has interpreted the Code of Conduct to be subject to the “Immunity Clause” in the case involving
Joshua Dariye, the former Governor of Plateau State.10
Low level of compliance with respect to submitting asset declaration information on time is one of
the limitations of the asset declaration process in Nigeria. One of the reasons responsible for this
low level of compliance is that some public officer holders –who are covered by asset disclosure
process- are not even aware that they are required to submit asset disclosure forms. On
questioning some officials of the CCB’s Department of Education and Advocacy Services, it was
discovered that funding and capacity constraints inhibited the CCB’s capacity to carry out
comprehensive advocacy initiatives at all levels with a view to changing the behavior of public
office holders about the asset declaration process. Intense advocacy initiatives should increase
awareness among public office holders and the public about the activities of the CCB and how
they can effectively engage with asset declaration process; this should ultimately improve
compliance levels even though disclosure constraints remains a major barrier to the active
involvement and participation of citizens and civil society in the process.
One of the issues not sufficiently addressed in the CCB’s asset declaration form is the issue of
beneficial ownership. Ensuring the transparency of ultimate (or “beneficial”) ownership is critical
to prevent, detect, and investigate the abuse of corporate vehicles to engage in corruption.
Corrupt officials may form or use legal persons (e.g. companies) to obscure their part in a bribery
or kickback scheme; strike advantageous deals with themselves, their family, or their associates;
or launder the associated proceeds. The risk of the abuse of corporate vehicles is particularly
10
Joshua Chibi Dariye v. Code of Conduct Bureau & 2 Ors Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CSI50712004 (Unreported Judgment of Adah J of
Federal High Court, Abuja delivered on 6 December, 2004

12. -9-
acute in the public sectors (i.e. ministries, departments and agencies) where large sums of state
resources are regularly expended to procure equipment or obtain services and expertise from
contractors, whether local or foreign. Having presented an overview of the contextual background
and statistics on the administration of the asset declaration process in Nigeria, the next section
discusses the structural and institutional frameworks governing its administration and application.
3. Institutional Framework for Asset Declaration in Nigeria
As with most public sector institutions, the CCB is somewhat subject to the policies and actions
of the administration in power especially as its Chairman is usually an appointee of the President
subject to confirmation by the National Assembly. This carries far-reaching implications for the
independence of the CCB in relation to discharging its mandate in an objective and fair manner.
Before examining the role of the CCB in administering and managing the asset declaration
landscape in Nigeria, there is a need to provide an overview of the asset declaration landscape,
the thematic thrusts of asset declaration, the dimensions of asset declaration, and major
stakeholders of the asset declaration landscape in Nigeria.
3.1 Asset Declaration Landscape in Nigeria: Overview
The landscape for asset declaration in Nigeria is predicated on the Code of Conduct for Public
Officers as contained in Part 1 of the 5th
Schedule of the 1979 Constitution and further elucidated
in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. This law mandates all public officers
at across the federal, state and local government levels are expected to comply with its provisions.
Failure to make one’s asset declaration public after submitting the asset declaration form to the
Code of Conduct Bureau does not in itself constitute any harm to anyone. It is only harmful when
people hide behind the fact that members of the public do not have access to the declaration to
make false declarations in order to cover up assets illegally acquired in corruption or abuse of
office.11
The implication of this is that there is no legal obligation to publicize a declaration of
assets in Nigeria, the refusal to do so is potentially harmful to the country. When asset declaration
information is not made public, it becomes challenging for citizens to actively engage the process.
Citizens are a critical stakeholder of the process and as such, could provide information to the
CCB that enables them to investigate and verify breaches to code especially as it relates to
significant variations in size of assets and wealth after their term. When asset declaration is
somewhat treated in secrecy, it could potentially provide an incentive to public officers to
mismanage or divert public resources. This position is strengthened by the fact that most public
officers being tried for or convicted of corruption have been found to have made a false declaration
of their assets. Having said this, there is also the question of ‘privacy’. Non-public disclosure of
asset declaration does necessarily imply guilt or a breach of the code. Even honest public officers
who comply with the code may prefer to keep information about their wealth private especially in
societies where the level of inequality is high in Nigeria. At the heart of the demand for privacy of
asset declaration by public officers is ‘public perception’. Some honest and wealthy public officers
who make their asset declaration information public may be perceived in negative light given the
high level of inequality in Nigeria. This poses serious challenges to calls to make this information
public.
Furthermore, regarding the public disclosure of asset declaration information, it is necessary to
note that while more than 150 countries have introduced asset disclosure requirements for their
public officials. Public disclosure of private assets of public officials and family members ought
not to clash with the rights to privacy and data protection. Both rights are absolute and can be
restricted provided there is a basis in law and a legitimate public interest justifies the restriction.
11
Lawal, I., B., Public declaration of assets in Nigeria: conflict or synergy between law and morality? African Human Rights Law
Journal, vol. 9(1) pp.224-261, 2009.

13. -10-
Prevention of corruption and exposing unexplained wealth of officials are serious and legitimate
public interests. Corruption poses a threat to national security and undermines the economic
wellbeing of citizens. Limitations on the privacy of public officials by requiring them to disclose
their income, assets, and liabilities serves the public interests. In fact, certain studies,12
have found
a positive correlation between public access to declared information and reduced levels of
perceived corruption. Country experiences also indicate that public access can greatly increase
the ability of disclosure systems to deliver results. Not all countries have the same approach
towards public disclosure of asset declaration information. Some countries, such as Canada,
Ecuador, Madagascar, and Chile, make public the entirety of the declaration (except for
information such as ID number or date of birth). Some others, such as Rwanda, Singapore and
Sierra Leone, keep categories of this information confidential. Unlike these countries, the
provisions of the Code of Conduct do not address the issue of making public this information; as
a result, this makes it difficult for citizens and civil society to access this information despite the
existence and provisions of the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act. Many countries make available
the asset declaration information online and the number of countries publishing declarations
online is constantly growing in line with global conventions on transparency and accountability in
public sector governance. Figure 1 outlines the percentage of countries with public availability of
declared information.
Figure 1: Percentage of countries with public availability of declared information by region
Source: World Bank13
As at 2016, about 54% of countries in Sub-Saharan Africa make public full or partial disclosure of
public officers’ asset declaration information compared to 90% of countries in OECD High Income
countries. While Nigeria is one of the countries in the world that has domesticated asset
declaration with legislation, it is not one of the countries listed as having public availability of this
information whether full or partial disclosure.
One of the most critical provisions of the Code of Conduct relates to the declaration of assets by
public officers. By paragraph 11 of the Code, every public officer shall immediately after assuming
12
Ivana, M., Rossi, L., P. & Berger, T., Getting the full picture on public officials: a how-to guide for effective financial disclosure.
New York: World Bank, 2016.
13
World Bank, Asset declarations: a threat to privacy or a powerful anti-corruption tool, Opinion Note, 26 September 2016.
Accessed from: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/opinion/2016/09/26/asset-declarations-a-threat-to-privacy-or-a-powerful-anti-
corruption-tool

14. -11-
office and thereafter, at the end of his term in office, submit to the Code of Conduct Bureau a
written declaration of his properties, assets and liabilities and those of his unmarried children
under the age of 18 years. The asset declaration form also requires a public officer to declare the
assets and liabilities of his spouse. Any information provided in the declaration form which is found
to be false shall be deemed a breach of the Code.14
Furthermore, a public officer who does any
act prohibited by the Code through a nominee, trustee or other agent is deemed ipso facto to
have committed a breach of the Code.15
The National Assembly may, however, exempt any cadre
of public officers from the asset declaration provisions, if it appears to it that their position is below
the rank which it considers adequate for the application of those provisions.16
Some asset declaration provisions have been criticized. For one, while it is acceptable that a man
may be able to declare his wife’s assets and liabilities on the assumption that he knows about
them, or, at worst, can force them out of her, doubts have been raised about the assets of children.
There is the possibility that an economically-sufficient child would not want his or her parents
interfering in their private business. Again, if the children are also public officers, this would
amount double declaration. Another challenge with the asset declaration process is the
uncertainty around the timeframe for the declaration of assets and submission of the asset
declaration form to the CCB. For example, it is understood that Vice-President Goodluck Jonathan
declared his assets before Justice Muktar Dodo of Abuja High Court on 30 May 2007,17
a day
after taking the oath of office. There appears to be some slight differences in the constitutional
provisions on declaration of assets and submission of the declaration forms in respect of political
office holders. Although political office holders are prohibited from performing the functions of their
offices until they have declared their assets and liabilities and have subsequently taken and
subscribed to the oath of allegiance and oath of office, Paragraph 11(1) of the Code of Conduct
requires every public officer to declare his assets ‘within three months’ of the coming into effect
of the Code or ‘immediately after taking office’. Public officers are also obliged by the Code of
Conduct Bureau to return their asset declaration forms within three months.18
This seems to give
the impression that the asset declaration forms of all public officers, including political officer
holders, should be returned within three months. Some public officers have hidden under this
false impression to delay their asset declaration for months after assuming office and performing
official functions.19
Another issue with the asset declaration process concerns the amount of
discretion accorded to the National Assembly based on the exemption clause in the provisions of
the Code of Conduct.20
Essentially, the National Assembly has the power to grant exemptions to
public officers from the asset declaration process given the exemption clause in the provisions of
the Code of Conduct legislation. You will recall that during the trial of the former Senate President,
Bukola Saraki, at the CCT, some members of the National Assembly initiated a move to grant an
exemption to the Senate President at the time including exploring a potential “immunity clause”
to stall proceedings at the CCT trial.
While public officers are mandated to declare their assets prior to resuming office and after the
termination of their term in office, concerns have been raised about the access to such information
to members of the public. Even with the existence of the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act,
members of the public still find it challenging to access the asset declaration information or forms
of public officers. While some public officers, such as President Shehu Musa Yar-adua and
14
Para 11(2) Fifth Schedule to the 199 Nigerian Constitution.
15
Para 13 Fifth Schedule to the 1999 Nigerian Constitution
16
Para 14(b) Fifth Schedule to the 1999 Nigerian Constitution
17
The Vanguard Newspapers, 9 August, 2007.
19
In July 2007 the CB complained about non-compliance by some state governors were yet to declare their assets about two
months after assumption of office, The Nation Newspaper, July 2007.
20
Akande, J,O, Introduction to the 1999 Nigerian Constitution.

15. -12-
Governor Seyi Makinde, have taken the lead by making their asset declarations public, many
public officers across the federal, state and local government levels are reluctant to do this. The
element of disclosure is critical to strengthening the asset declaration process since it provides a
means for enhancing transparency and accountability in governance. As already highlighted,
public officers in the legislative and executive branches of government are vested in not
strengthening some of the provisions of the Code of Conduct legislation especially around access
to such asset declaration information. This is partly due to the reluctance of National Assembly to
prescribe the terms and conditions under which the Code of Conduct Bureau should make asset
declarations available for inspection by members of the public. Without provisions for asset
declaration, it becomes a challenge for CCB to provide comprehensive reports on critical facets
of the asset declaration process. However, this should not deter the CCB from providing
aggregated descriptive reports on the asset declaration process.
Furthermore, while a public declaration of assets seems to violate the right to privacy under the
Nigerian Constitution and some other international human rights instruments to which Nigeria is
a signatory (i.e. ECOWAS Protocol on Anti-Corruption), it has been argued that there is nothing
inherently private in the affairs of public officers in accounting for public funds under their care,
and that there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of information on the assets of
public officers as trustees of the country’s resources. Consequently, legislative interventions
geared towards making the assets of public officers accessible to the public can be justified on
the basis of democratic values.
3.1.1 Thematic Thrusts of Asset Declaration
The main thematic thrusts for effective management of the asset declaration process are as
follows: (i) data management & reporting; (ii) advocacy; and (ii) verification and investigation.
The data management and reporting thrust is mainly concerned with how asset declaration
information is captured and managed by the CCB. Significant amount of quantitative and
qualitative data is generated from information provided by public officials and the CCB’s
processes for managing public officials’ asset declaration is largely paper-based. Although the
CCB has recently awarded a contract to Galaxy Backbone Limited to procure servers and other
hardware as the backbone for future automation and digitization of the asset declaration process.
This contract currently excludes the digitization of previously submitted asset declaration forms –
for instance, from 2010 till date- across the 36 states of the federation. The contract for hardware
to Galaxy Backbone is expected to be concluded between July and August 2020. After secure
servers have been created for the CCB, the next phase required is for the CCB to enlist the use
of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems to manage internal processes within the
organization including the processes for capturing, managing and reporting asset declaration
information. The proposed ERP system is currently not covered under the contract to Galaxy
Backbone. A key component of the proposed ERP system is the creation of an online portal that
would replace paper-based asset declaration by public officials. The success of effective reporting
of trends in asset declaration is heavily dependent on the creation of this portal to build on
hardware installations to be provided by Galaxy Backbone Limited.
The advocacy thrust is mainly concerned with how the CCB engages citizens in the asset
declaration process. Given the difficulty in investigating or verifying assets submitted by public
officials across the three levels of government, citizens play a critical role in enabling the CCB
achieve its mandate especially as it relates to flagging perceived or suspected cases of significant
increase in the wealth or assets of a public official within their domain. Advocacy, in this regards,
would not only create awareness on the asset declaration process and the CCB’s work; it could
also improve compliance by public officials in relation to providing timely and accurate information
on their assets upon assuming office. The proposed online portal that should be created for the

16. -13-
submission of asset declaration information should have a section where citizens can formally
register complaints about public officials’ suspicious assets. This approach would enable the CCB
to optimize resources when verifying or investigating public officials and also strengthen the asset
verification process in collaboration with other agencies such as the ICPC and EFCC. Again, the
success of effective data management and reporting on trends in asset declaration hinges on the
backend of the proposed ERP system, i.e. essentially, the backend should be designed in a way
that supports categorization of information with inbuilt formulas or algorithms for carrying out
specific anonymous reporting of information housed in a centralized database.
The verification and investigation thrust is a critical element of the asset declaration process.
Ideally, the CCB is supposed to verify all claims made in submitted asset declaration forms,
however, the logistical burden associated with carrying out this exercise in the three states –
covering public officials at the three levels of government- makes this a challenging task. In
addition, there are also significant costs associated with investigating unexplained increase in
wealth or assets between the baseline figures and the figures recorded after public officials have
exited office. Building on the work currently being done by Galaxy Backbone, any proposed ERP
system –which includes the online portal for declaring assets- should help the concerned
departments within the CCB to carry out asset verification in an efficient manner.
3.1.2 Dimensions of Asset Declaration in Nigeria
One of the dimensions is the ‘socio-economic dimension’. From a social perspective, asset
declaration in Nigeria is aimed at promoting ethical behavior among public officials who are tasked
with managing public resources for the good of the citizenry. It is one of the tools among a raft of
anti-corruption frameworks that is designed to ensure that public services meet the needs and
expectations of citizens. In the absence of asset declaration, public officials would be undeterred
in their motivation to amass illicit wealth or loot public resources at the expense of the citizenry.
The effects of corruption at all levels of government in Nigeria are well-documented. Some of
these include: poor infrastructure; poor quality of education; insecurity; high levels of poverty and
inequality etc.
Under the current administration of President Muhammadu Buhari, there have been numerous
cases of gross mismanagement and embezzlement of public resources by elected and appointed
government officials. Recently, Orji Uzor Kalu, the former governor of Abia state, was convicted
for embezzling about N6bn in public resources during his tenure as the administrator of the state.
Similar cases abound in Nigeria where people have abused their office to loot public resources.21
Consequently, the asset declaration process exists to discourage public officials from amassing
illicit wealth. Having said this, it is necessary to note that ‘asset declaration’ in itself, will not deter
some determined public officials from looting public resources, however, it can deter some of
them who fear that their illicit dealings could be unearthed either while in office or after they have
left.
Related to the social dimension is the ‘cultural dimension’ where pressure from the public officer’s
constituents can drive their behavior with respect to public resources under their control. In fact,
this dimension is one of the critical factors driving political actors’ engagement with the asset
declaration process. Ethnic agitations for representation in public office is often driven by the belief
by constituents that such representation –either by election or appointment- is an opportunity to
claim their share of the national cake. These pressures can influence even ethical public officers
into unethical behavior especially in relation to the management of public resources under their
21
Orji Kalu loses bid to get bail after being convicted for fraud, Premium Times, 23 December 2019. Accessed from:
https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/headlines/369551-orji-kalu-loses-bid-to-get-bail-after-being-convicted-for-fraud.html [24
April 2020]

17. -14-
care. Another cultural driver and key attribute of Nigerian society is the widespread belief that
good individuals supersede good institutions. Consequently, the asset declaration process would
gain proper traction when more senior leaders –such as the President, Vice President, Senate
President etc.- declare their assets. The scenario where the CCB recorded a marked
improvement in asset declaration compliance among the public officials as a result of President
Yar-adua’s public declaration of his asset highlights the challenge of excessive dependence on
‘strong individuals’ over ‘strong institutions’. The CCB, like most public institutions in the country,
suffers from excessive interference from the executive branch (i.e. politicians); and as long as the
leadership of the CCB is subject to the whims of the President or administration in power (note:
CCB is directly under the Presidency), it is less likely to judiciously manage the asset declaration
process in a fair, equitable and objective manner. Addressing this challenge requires a reform of
the leadership selection process together with organizational cultural transformation. These are
CCB-specific issues discussed in more detail subsequently in this document.
From an ‘economic perspective’, asset declaration supports sound public financial management
which would ultimately impact poverty and inequality levels in the country. In the absence of a
strengthened asset declaration regime in Nigeria, inequality levels would continue to worsen as
more public officers would become undeterred in their resolve to loot the public treasury.
Furthermore, a potent asset disclosure system would address the problem of rent-seeking and
cronyism in Nigeria as public officers would be deterred from diverting public resources to their
friends and families at the expense of the common good. Having explored the dimensions of asset
declaration in Nigeria, the next section looks at the thematic thrusts of asset declaration which
should contribute to strengthening the design of any technical assistance to the CCB.
3.1.3 Main Actors Involved in the Asset Declaration Process
The success of the asset declaration process as an anti-corruption tool hinges on public officials
providing timely and accurate information about their assets both at the point of resuming office
and after exiting office. As noted earlier in this document, while the asset declaration can stem
corruption in public governance, it cannot deter determined corrupt public officials from looting or
mismanaging public resources under their care. Public officials are usually reluctant to disclose
the true value of their assets for a variety of reasons including concerns that such information
could find its way to the public domain. Some of them fear that this information could be misused
by political opponents and the government. Furthermore, some officials are unwilling to disclose
the true value of their wealth to avoid being seen as extremely wealthy in a society where majority
of citizens live below the poverty line.
At present, the CCB does not disclose the information provided in asset declaration forms despite
calls from civil society to do otherwise. CSOs contend that disclosure is key to strengthening
transparency and accountability in public governance; they also contend that anyone willing to
serve the citizens should be willing to make their asset declaration forms public. There have been
cases where some politicians and public officials have made their asset declaration public even
though there are a significant number of public officials who do not share the same sentiment.
The downside of civil society’s position regarding asset declaration disclosure is that it could deter
well-meaning Nigerians from foraying into politics or the public sector as they do not want to be
possibly viewed by the public as excessively wealthy in a country where most of the citizens are
poor.
Given restrictions around disclosure of public officials’ asset declaration information, the
effectiveness of the asset declaration process relies on the commitment, professionalism, and
capacity of the CCB itself. The CCB must see itself as being at the frontlines of the war on
corruption rather than seeing itself as appendage of the Presidency. The institution must be
allowed to discharge its responsibilities in a fair, objective and balanced manner devoid of

18. -15-
interference from the executive branch. The CCB has been in existence for over four decades
and during this time, it has generated sufficient data on the assets of public officials. This
information can be objectively used to carryout federal, regional and state-level analysis of
aggregate trends in compliance and wealth appreciation of public officials. This information can
be used by anti-corruption agencies and civil society to validate the effectiveness of the current
administration’s anti-corruption programme. This information can also be used to develop a
national transparency or corruption index.
Table 2: Stakeholder Identification and Engagement
Government Civil Society Media
- The President
- The Vice President
- Senate President
- Governors
- Public Office Holders
- National Assembly
- Federal Ministry of Justice
- ICPC
- EFCC
- NFIU
- CCB
- CISLAC
- PLAC
- OSIWA
- Open Initiative
- SERAP
- OSIWA
- Premium Times
- International Centre for
Investigative Reporting (ICIR)
- Wole Soyinka Centre for
Investigative Reporting
The President and Vice President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria are the chief custodians
of the asset declaration process in Nigeria given the nature of Nigerian society where the strength
of personalities and character tends to supersede the strength of institutions. In cases, where the
President and Vice President takes the lead in disclosing their asset, there is a tendency for most
public officials under their administration to declare their asset albeit with reservations among
some of them. A case in point is the period between 2006 and 2007; in 2007, when President
Musa Yar’adua made his asset declaration open to the public, 198,851 asset declaration forms
were completed compared to 2006 when the number of completed forms stood at 96,449.22
It is
also necessary to note that the President Yar’adua declared his assets within one month of
assuming office which is well within the time limits of 3 months allowed in the Act. Following his
declaration, Goodluck Jonathan –his Vice President at the time- caved into pressure to declare
his own assets albeit with some reservations. While efforts must be made to treat the CCB as an
independent institution tasked with management of the asset declaration process, the unique
nature of the polity implies that leaders and senior government officials must take the lead to
improve aggregate compliance levels. Given that the CCB is under the Presidency, the President
can influence budget allocation provisions to the CCB as insufficient funding has inhibited the
institution’s capacity to effectively discharge its mandate.
The Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) is the main institution –by law- that is responsible for
general oversight, administration and management of the asset declaration process in Nigeria. In
addition to being the main custodian of asset declaration forms submitted by public office holders,
the CCB is tasked with responding to requests to investigate perceived breaches of non-
compliance. Some of the challenges hampering the CCB’s capacity to effectively deliver its
22
Department of Asset Declaration, Code of Conduct Bureau

19. -16-
mandate have already been mentioned. Some of these are still discussed subsequently whilst
analyzing the asset declaration process in Nigeria.
The National Assembly is another critical stakeholder of the asset declaration given their law-
making and oversight responsibilities. They have a critical role in reforming the asset declaration
process and making it effective as an instrument for fighting corruption. For one, reforms are
required to address the issue of public disclosure of information in asset declaration forms
especially bearing in mind that the National Assembly is responsible for setting the terms and
conditions for accessing this information. Accessing populated asset declaration forms is very
challenging despite the existence of the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act. The challenge is that
the National Assembly may be slow to implement any required reforms to strengthen the asset
declaration process given fiduciary complicity of some members, i.e. for instance, some members
of the Senate are former state governors who may be reluctant to implement reforms that enhance
public access to the information contained in their access declaration forms. One of such critical
reforms to asset declaration legislation that can be implemented by the National Assembly
concerns including provisions that indicate the terms and conditions for public access and
inspection of the asset declaration information of public office holders. Advocacy initiatives by civil
society should focus on engaging effectively with the leadership of the National Assembly to to
build consensus among the members of both houses to implement much needed reforms to asset
declaration laws.
Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) are also a critical stakeholder in the asset declaration
process given their role in advocating and demanding for increased transparency and
accountability in public governance. Over the years, CSOs have advocated for reforms to the
asset declaration process especially as it relates to strengthening compliance, enforcing punitive
measures for non-compliance, and public disclosure of asset declaration trends at all levels of
government. A critical component of reforms advocated should also include considering
provisions that enhance the CCB’s independence. Organizations, such as Socio-Economic
Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP), the Policy and Legislative Advocacy Centre (PLAC)
and the Civil Society Legislative & Advocacy Centre (CISLAC), have been advocating for reforms
to asset declaration legislation especially around compliance and disclosure. Recently, SERAP
filed a lawsuit asking the Federal High Court, Abuja to order President Muhammadu Buhari, Vice-
President Professor Yemi Osinbajo, 36 state governors and their deputies to “make public details
of their assets, specifically property and income, contained in their asset declaration forms
submitted to the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) since assuming office.”23
The case is still being
adjudicated upon with uncertainty as regards the final judgment. Collaboration with CSOs such
as SERAP, Budgit and CISLAC is key to building the critical mass needed to get the National
Assembly and Ministry of Justice to strengthen the asset declaration process in Nigeria through
much needed reforms. Furthermore, organizations such as OSIWA, which is committed to
improve transparency and accountability, could provide funding support to advocacy initiatives
targeted at strengthening asset declaration legislation and enforcement in Nigeria.
Public Office holders consists of elected and appointed officials at the federal, state and local
levels. Section 2.1.1 outlines some of the public office holders required to disclose their assets.
Weak compliance on the part of public office holders is one of the reasons responsible for the low
level of asset declaration forms issued, completed and returned to the CCB. A number of reasons
abound for why majority of them do not disclose their assets in a timely manner even though the
CCB Act provides for a period of three months within assuming office for public office holders to
submit their asset declaration forms. Some public office holders have taken advantage of this
timeline to stretch or evade their compliance responsibilities; in fact, an official of the CCB within
23
FHC/ABJ/CS/65/2020, Federal High Court Abuja, January 2020.

20. -17-
the Department of Education and Advocacy confirmed that there are numerous cases where
public office holders have manipulated gaps in the Act –especially around timelines for
compliance- to submit their completed asset declaration forms more than a year after assuming
office. The incentives and motivations for public officials to comply are discussed in more detail
subsequently.
Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) came into existence following the
Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Establishment Act of 2004. The Act mandates the
EFCC to combat financial and economic crimes. The Commission is empowered to prevent,
investigate, prosecute and penalize economic and financial crimes and is charged with the
responsibility of enforcing the provisions of other laws and regulations relating to economic and
financial crimes, including: the Money Laundering Act of 1995; Advance Fee Fraud and Other
Fraud-Related Offences Act of 1995; Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act of 2004 etc. The EFCC
appears to possess increased investigative capacity to investigate corruption cases and as such,
the CCB can leverage the EFCC’s capacity –given its limited funding (note: the CCB’s budget
allocation decreased from N2.7bn in 2008 to N2bn in 2009- to support investigation and
verification of assets as contained in asset declaration forms submitted by public officers at all
levels of government. The Nigeria Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU)24
is another important organ
of the EFCC that the CCB can coordinate with to verify and investigate breaches or wrongful
disclosure of assets, especially considering that foreign assets and domiciliary accounts are
covered within asset declaration forms. For one, the CCB can leverage the NFIU’s Currency
Transaction Reports and Suspicious Transaction Reports to carry out verification and
investigation of information provided by public officials in their asset declaration forms.
Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) was established following the passage
into law of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act of 2000. Its mandate is to prohibit
and prescribe punishment for corrupt practices and other related offences. Two of its
responsibilities that are relevant to the work of the CCB are as follows: (1) to receive and
investigate complaints from members of the public on allegations of corrupt practices and in
appropriate cases, prosecute offenders; and (2) to educate the public on and against bribery,
corruption and related offences. Both responsibilities indicate potential collaboration between
CCB in the areas of verification/investigation of information provided in asset declaration forms
especially in cases where formal complaints have been made, and advocacy targeted at both
public officials and the general public. Advocacy targeted at the public officials across all levels of
government would help improve compliance levels, i.e. rate of completed asset declaration forms
submitted. Advocacy targeted at the general public, on the other hand, should be geared towards
improving the public and civil society’s engagement in the asset declaration process. Some of the
ways that civil society and the public can engage with the process are discussed subsequently.
The National Orientation Agency (NOA) of Nigeria is the government institution tasked with
communicating government policy, staying abreast of public opinion, and promoting patriotism,
national unity, and development of Nigerian society. It implements advocacy in the areas of
national unity, elections and electoral violence, and corruption. Given the CCB’s perceived
weakness in implementing targeted advocacy initiatives around asset declaration, it can
collaborate with the NOA to implement effective advocacy initiatives designed to improve citizens’
engagement in the asset declaration process and improve compliance among public officials at
both the federal, state and local government levels. The NOA can collaborate with CSOs, such
as SERAP, CISLAC and PLAC- to implement mass advocacy initiatives needed to get citizens
involved in the asset declaration process in Nigeria. Despite concerns around the access to asset
24
NFIU draws its responsibilities directly from the 40+9 Special Recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the
global coordinating body for Anti Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) efforts and also draws its
powers from the EFCC (Establishment) Act of 2004 and the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act of 2004 (2011)

21. -18-
declaration information, citizens have a critical role to play in strengthening the process; for one,
citizens can inform the CCB about the suspicious wealth/income of public officials in their domain.
Having outlined the main actors involved in Nigeria’s asset declaration process, the next section
delves into some critical concerns directly or indirectly influencing the process. Figure 1 outlines
the power/influence map for asset declaration in Nigeria
The Federal Ministry of Justice (FMoJ), which is under the office of the Attorney General, is a
critical stakeholder in the asset declaration process. It is important to note that leadership of the
FMoJ varies depending on the administration or government in power. For instance, under the
former administration of President Goodluck Jonathan, we had an Attorney General and a
Minister of Justice; and in this case, the FMoJ was headed by the Minister. On the other hand,
under the administration of President Muhammadu Buhari, there is no Minister of Justice; hence,
the FMoJ is headed by the Attorney General. Among the key mandates of the FMoJ include:
providing guidelines on international and local asset recovery regime, tracking of all assets
recovered on behalf of the federal government by various law enforcement and anti-corruption
agencies, and facilitating the early translation of Government policies into legislation through the
Ministry’s legal drafting function. Consequently, the FMoJ is key to drafting, and translating any
reforms to the asset declaration process coming from the National Assembly. Furthermore, the
FMoJ is key to prosecuting cases of breaches of the asset declaration by public officers. This was
demonstrated in the role the FMoJ played in facilitating the prosecution of the former Senate
President, Senator Bukola Saraki, at the CCT.25
Advocacy initiatives targeted at getting the
National Assembly to implement reforms to strengthen the asset declaration process should also
target the FMoJ.
The Media is a critical component of the asset declaration process in Nigeria. Some of the
discussions conducted in this report highlight logistical and capacity challenges associated with
tracking, investigating and monitoring the asset declaration information of public office holders.
Budgetary constraints, capacity limitations and personnel limitations make it challenging for the
CCB to adequately monitor and track the asset declaration information of public officers.
Consequently, media organizations could support in this regards. In addition to news media,
specialist organizations such as the Premium Times, International Centre for Investigative
Reporting (ICIR), and the Wole Soyinka Centre for Investigative Reporting could leverage their
investigative journalism expertise to support with tracking and investigating the asset declaration
information of public officers including flagging situations where there are breaches. These
organizations have demonstrated their commitment to promoting transparency and accountability
in public governance by some of their previous investigative reports such as Premium Times’
investigation of National Assembly constituency projects across the six geopolitical regions of the
country.
3.2 Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB)
The CCB is the institution responsible for general administration of the asset declaration process
in Nigeria. Provisions for its establishment and operation are enshrined in the 5th
Schedule of the
1979 Constitution and further strengthened in the 1999 Constitution. The mandate of the CCB is
as follows: “to establish and maintain a high standard of public morality in the conduct of
government business and to ensure that the actions and behavior of public officers conform to
the highest standards of public morality and accountability”.26
The CCB consists of a Chairman (appointed by the President and subject to confirmation by the
National Assembly) and CCB Commissioners (representative of the six geopolitical regions
25
CCT Trial: FG lines 8 witnesses against Saraki, The Punch Newspaper, 6 February, 2016.
26
Section 3 of the Fifth Schedule of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria

22. -19-
according to the Federal Character principle). The CCB head office is in Abuja and has branches
across the 36 states of the federation. Annex A outlines the CCB’s organizational structure.
The fifth schedule of the CCB creates the enabling environment and gives it legal powers to:
 Receive declarations by public officers
 Retain custody of such declaration and make them available for inspection by any Nigerian
citizen on such terms and conditions as the National Assembly may prescribe
 Ensure compliance with and where appropriate, enforce the provisions of the code of
conduct or any law relating thereto
 Receive complaints about non-compliance with or breach of the provision of the code of
conduct or any law in relation thereto, investigate complaints and, where appropriate, refer
such matters to the code of conduct tribunal
 Carry out other functions as may be conferred upon it by the National Assembly
Clearly, there are legal frameworks in existence that give the CCB the mandate to discharge its
responsibilities, however, it has not lived up to expectations when it comes to transforming the
ethical behavior of public officials. Several factors account for this including perception among
some public office holders of the weakness of the institution (i.e. more bark and less bite), limited
funding of the CCB, insufficient manpower coupled with poor quality of existing personnel, weak
capacity to investigate breaches of asset disclosure requirements especially at the state level,
weak operational capacity (i.e. logistics), weak collaboration with other relevant anticorruption
institutions, the CCB’s narrow and conservative interpretation of its mandate etc.
As already highlighted earlier in this report, low level of compliance by public officers at all levels–
especially in relation to timely submission of asset declaration forms- is one of the limitations of
asset declaration in Nigeria. One of the reasons responsible for this low level of compliance is
that some public officer holders –who are covered by asset disclosure process- are not even
aware that they are required to submit asset disclosure forms. On questioning some officials of
the CCB’s Department of Education and Advocacy Services, it was discovered that funding and
capacity constraints inhibited the CCB’s capacity to carry out comprehensive advocacy initiatives
at all levels with a view to changing the behavior of public office holders about the asset
declaration process. Intense advocacy initiatives should increase awareness among public office
holders and the public about the activities of the CCB and how they can effectively engage with
asset declaration process; this should ultimately improve compliance levels even though
disclosure constraints remains a major barrier to the active involvement and participation of
citizens and civil society in the process.
One of the issues not sufficiently addressed in the CCB’s asset declaration form is the issue of
beneficial ownership. Ensuring the transparency of ultimate (or “beneficial”) ownership is critical
to prevent, detect, and investigate the abuse of corporate vehicles to engage in corruption.
Corrupt officials may form or use legal persons (e.g. companies) to obscure their part in a bribery
or kickback scheme; strike advantageous deals with themselves, their family, or their associates;
or launder the associated proceeds. The risk of the abuse of corporate vehicles is particularly
acute in the public sectors (i.e. ministries, departments and agencies) where large sums of state
resources are regularly expended to procure equipment or obtain services and expertise from
contractors, whether local or foreign. Having presented an overview of the contextual background
and statistics on the administration of the asset declaration process in Nigeria, the next section
discusses the structural and institutional frameworks governing its application.
3.2.1 Strengthening the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB)

23. -20-
This section of the report highlights critical considerations for strengthening the CCB’s capacity
to achieve its mandate. One of the critical areas for strengthening the CCB is to improve its
capacity to manage and process significant amounts asset declaration data at scale. The paper-
based approach for collecting asset declaration information is largely paper-based and mundane.
This makes analysis and reporting challenging in the absence of a centralized database that
collects information from public officials across the three levels of government.
In response to the burden of paper-based processes, the CCB recently issued a contract to
Galaxy Backbone Limited for the creation of secured servers that will support future ERP systems
to be procured for managing the CCB’s internal organizational processes. As mentioned earlier,
this contract is only for the procurement of hardware and does not include critical software
elements such as ERP systems which would house an online portal for capturing, managing and
reporting asset declaration information. This system would also be enhanced by the digitization
of historic or previously submitted paper-based asset declaration forms within a reasonable
timeframe given the costs involved in doing this. This has to be done if meaningful data is to be
aggregated for subsequent and meaningful reporting of trends in asset declaration. This
digitization, again, is not covered under the contract to Galaxy Backbone. In the absence of the
ERP system, efforts to analyse trends in asset declaration would prove futile. While such a system
would enhance the efficiency of the process, there are concerns about the ownership of the
process by concerned staff of the CCB. In the absence of ownership of the digitization process,
insufficient data is likely to be captured in the database from data points highlighted in the typical
CCB form. The form remains the same and provides the nomenclature for the design of the
backend for a proposed online asset declaration portal. There are also concerns around the
capacity of staff to analyse data housed in the portal. This could lead to a situation where the data
captured in the portal remains redundant especially bearing in mind disclosure restrictions despite
the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act. Consequently, staff of departments concerned must be
trained on how to use the information generated from the online portal for effective monitoring,
reporting and even targeted investigation of trends in wealth of public officials at the regional,
federal, state, and local levels. This information can then be used by civil society organizations
and other anti-corruption agencies to focus their approach on dealing with the inherent problem
of corruption in public service.
Again, despite its constitutional mandate, the Code of Conduct has been crippled due to
inadequate funding and lack of enabling legislation to activate some of the Constitutional
Provisions. Top officials of the Executive and Legislature are known violators of the Code of
Conduct. For instance, while the Code prohibits the President, Vice-President and some other
categories of public officers from receiving gifts and donations from individuals or corporation who
are currently executing government contracts, President Obasanjo and Vice President Atiku
Abubakar received donations from the private organizations and individuals including Aliko
Dangote, Group from Europe, Friends of Atiku, Emeka Offor, Grand Alliance, First Atlantic Bank
etc. These donations were in violation of the paragraph 7(b) of the Code of Conduct. However, in
Yusuf v. Obasanjo,27
the Supreme Court held that these donations do not amount to the standard
of corrupt practice as it does not constitute undue influence nor do they connote a corruptible act.
Ambiguities regarding some of the provisions of the CCB Act make it difficult for the CCB to
successfully prosecute breaches of the Code.
Another challenge facing the CCB is the issue of funding. Limited funding inhibits the capacity of
the CCB to carry out thorough investigation and verification of information provided by public
officials given the significant logistical costs involved. In 2019 the approved budget for the CCB
was N2.4bn however, the CCB only received about N1.4bn most of which went to recurrent
27
Yusuf v. Obasanjo, [2003] 16 N.W.L.R. (pt. 847) 554,641-642 (Nigeria).

24. -21-
expenditure. The approved budget for 2019 was N2.03bn representing a decline from the figure
in 2018. Budget constraints may limit the scope of the digitization process across the 36 states of
the federation, however, since the scope of the contract to Galaxy entails creating a centralized
online portal, the states can key into this portal even though actual access to housed data from
asset declaration forms would be under the control of the CCB head office in Abuja.
There is also the problem of lack of responsibility within the CCB itself as it relates to rising up to
its responsibilities as envisioned in the constitution. Despite the challenges associated with non-
compliance to timely and accurate submission by public officials, the CCB hardly carries out
verification of information in forms populated by public officials. One of the reasons for this is a
prevalent belief among staff of some of the departments within the organization that the directive
for verification must come from above, i.e. from the CCB Chairman itself. This problem is at the
core of the organizational culture of the organization and limits the CCB’s capacity to address the
problem of corruption in public service.
As with most public sector institutions, the CCB is somewhat subject to the policies and actions
of the administration in power especially as its head is usually an appointee of the President
subject to confirmation of the National Assembly. This carries far-reaching implications for the
independence of the CCB in relation to discharging its mandate in an objective and fair manner.
There is the possibility for the CCB to be used as a tool by the government in power to harass or
intimidate perceived political opponents as evidenced in the prosecution of the Bukola Saraki, the
former Senate President, at the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT). In a country or society where
personalities thrive over institutions, what you find is a situation whereby the functionality of
institutions is largely dependent on the strength and character of the person at the helm. This
observation also applies to the CCB where departmental heads must obtain directives from the
Head of the CCB before they do their jobs. Even in cases where requests have been made by
civil society organizations (CSOs) to investigate certain public office holders, the Department of
Intelligence, Investigation & Monitoring must first obtain authorization from those at the helm
before they can proceed with investigation.
At this point, it is essential to highlight some of the main actors of the asset declaration process
at the macro level in Nigeria. Some of the actors identified hint at potential collaboration for
strengthening the asset declaration process and ultimately, reducing corruption in Nigeria.
3.2.2 Framework for Managing and Reporting Asset Declaration Information
This section is particularly relevant to the proposed OSIWA-funded technical assistance to the
CCB. In carrying out this PEA, some discussions were held with officials of the CCB to extract
meaningful information critical to the success of the OSIWA-funded project. Some of the findings
from this discussion –coupled with some of the information already discussed- would be used to
develop recommendations for taking the project forward including immediate next steps.
Some of the information obtained from engagements with CCB officials in Abuja focused on the
management and reporting of data captured in asset declaration forms. Key highlights of
discussions are as follows:
 A contract was recently awarded to Galaxy Backbone Limited for the procurement and
installation of secure servers to house information generated by the CCB. The server and
other hardware to be provided by Galaxy Backbone is intended to provide the foundation

25. -22-
or ‘backbone’ for future software-based systems and processes to be used by the CCB.
This contract is strictly for hardware and does not include software components
 Given the information above, it is essential to note that there is still need for an ERP
system which would –in addition to managing internal processes such as procurement,
HR, finance etc.- include an online portal that can be used by public officials to declare
their assets. The CCB anticipates that they would require this to address the current
problem of a paper-based asset declaration process. While some private sector
organizations have delivered presentations to senior management of the CCB on potential
ERP systems, the CCB lacks funding to contract this. They indicated that they are happy
to have donors fund such initiative; while it is possible to get donors to fund this initiative,
the CCB must demonstrate commitment by providing counterpart funds in the region of
between 30 to 40% of the total cost of the initiative
 A window exists for getting the CCB to commit counterpart funds for the establishment of
an ERP system that would include an online portal for asset declaration. This window lies
in the observation that the CCB has not yet finalized its workplan hence, this initiative
could be included into it. However, for this to happen quickly, a strategic engagement
approach is required with focus on decision-makers within the organization, i.e. directors,
heads of departments and the CCB Chairman.
 With respect to the ERP solution and online portal, the CCB are intent on digitalizing the
asset declaration process albeit funding constraints. Without this system, analyzing trends
in asset declaration would prove futile as the current contract to Galaxy Backbone does
not involve this important software component. The CCB does not appear to have
budgeted for this initiative in its 2020 budget and as such, would welcome donor funding
to support this expensive initiative. Despite this, it is possible for the CCB to provide
counterpart funding towards this especially as its workplan has not been finalized
 The backend for any online portal for capturing assets declared by public officials should
be able to categorize information from relevant data points so that meaningful analysis
can be carried out later. The structure for the backend database to support the proposed
online asset declaration portal should collect information using the following critical data
points:
 Name
 Date/Year
 Position/Designation
 Location of position
 ID Number
 Cash in Bank: categorized according to notable currencies –NGN/GBP/USD/EUR
 Address and value of properties in Nigeria
 Address and value of properties abroad
 Interests/equity holdings in for-profit companies
 Number of vehicles and purchase costs
 Shares in public companies
 Address and value of properties owned by spouse and children
The aforementioned data points can be used to carry out aggregate quantitative analysis of trends
and variations of the assets declared by public officials at the regional, federal, state, and local
levels.
4. Strategic Recommendations
Based on the findings of the political economy analysis (PEA), the following are the key
recommendations for strengthening asset declaration in Nigeria:

26. -23-
 Engage with high-level CCB officials to build buy-in and strengthen ease of access for the
intervention. One of the effective ways of approaching this is for CSOs to support a retreat
for the CCB board alongside other OSIWA partners. This retreat provides a unique
opportunity for CSOs to engage with CCB decision-makers and possibly make inputs to
their workplan and other programmatic initiatives designed to strengthen the asset
declaration process in Nigeria.
 The contract to Galaxy Backbone Limited only addresses the hardware element of an IT-
based system for the CCB. It does not address the need for an ERP system that also
includes an online portal for asset declaration. Without this ERP solution, it is almost
impossible to carry out an analysis of trends in asset declaration. Consequently, the
proposed retreat provides an opportunity to explore the need for this solution and how to
approach it together with senior level officials of the CCB
 The backend for the online portal –a component of the proposed ERP system- should be
such that it caters to the collection and appropriate categorization of relevant data points
for asset declaration. Furthermore, the backend database should contain inbuilt
algorithms/commands for different types of time-driven analysis
 Any future contract awarded for the establishment of ERP solutions should include the
digitization of previously submitted asset declaration forms. This is needed to build
sufficient information to carry out relevant trend analysis in asset declaration. Furthermore,
this needs to be done soonest so that this information is not lost
 One of the issues with the CCB concerns the perceived inability of its monitoring and
investigation unit to initiate investigation and verification exercises. This issue lies at the
core of its independence as an institution responsible for promoting ethics in public
governance. This can be addressed through an organizational cultural change
intervention needed to transform the attitudes of its staff and strengthen its internal
organizational processes. This organizational cultural change intervention would also
transform perceptions around conservative interpretation of its mandate. In addition,
CSOs need to advocate much needed reforms needed to strengthen the independence
of the CCB. The CCB could also explore platforms to collaborate with CSOs in
strengthening the asset declaration process especially as it relates to mapping trends in
compliance across the three levels of government
 Asset verification can be expensive hence, the need for these agencies to collaborate with
the citizenry and civil society to reduce the burden of asset verification and investigation.
CSOs could also advocate for improved funding for the CCB, where necessary, to
strengthen its capacity to enforce the existing provisions of the CCB Act. The National
Assembly has high power and high influence given their law-making responsibilities.
Advocacy to the National Assembly to strengthen the provisions of the CCB Act especially
around access to/public disclosure of asset declaration information and the independence
of the CCB process.
 Elected and appointed political officials have high power and high influence given the
powers of their office and their obligation to demonstrate responsibility and ethics in the
management of public resources. Again, their actions could send a clear message about
their commitment to transparency and accountability. Public officers who have made the
asset declaration public could become champions for strengthening the asset declaration
process in Nigeria.

27. -24-
 CSOs are the guardians of a credible and functional democratic society. Nigeria faces a
peculiar challenge of limited transparency and accountability in public governance and as
such, CSOs must keep drawing attention to gaps in public governance especially in
relation to asset declaration. They must come together to build a critical mass for
increased advocacy on much needed reforms –especially around the CCB’s
independence and public disclosure of public officers’ asset declaration information- to the
CCB Act to strengthen the asset declaration process in Nigeria.
 At the moment, the CCB appears not to have budgeted for the proposed ERP solution
and as such, would welcome donor intervention to fund this initiative. While it is possible
for development partnwers –in collaboration with the CCB- to raise funds from donors for
this initiative, the speed of securing such funds can be enhanced by getting the CCB to
commit to providing some counterpart funding towards this
 The CCB must commit to continuous training of its staff especially in relation to effective
use of future data management solutions. Following the establishment of ERP solutions,
CCB staff must be trained on how to use them for data analysis, reporting, and asset
verification. Following the award of the contract to Galaxy Backbone Limited, CCB
established an IT committee to coordinate all ongoing and future IT projects in the
organization. This committee can be engaged with during the deployment of ERP
solutions to ensure that it meets development partners’ expectations
 Broad ownership by staff of ongoing and future IT interventions is critical for the success
of ongoing digitization initiatives. Staff must be carried along throughout the process so
that when these materialize, they are prepared and equipped to adapt accordingly.
Consequently, effective communication from top management is critical for the success
of such interventions

28. -25-
Annex A: Organizational Structure of the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB)
Source: Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB)

29. -26-
Annex B: Statistical Trends in Asset Declaration Information (CCB)
Table 1: Statistical Information on General Administration of Assets Declaration Forms (1999-2010)
s/n Year Nominal Roll Asset
Declaration
Forms (ADF)
Issued
Completed
Asset
Declaration
Forms (CADF)
Returned
Acknowledgement
slips Distributed
to Declarants
Asset Declaration
Forms (ADF)
Issued not
Returned
1 1999 80,985 80,985 61,540 61,540 19,445
2 2000 83,505 83,505 59,470 59,470 24,035
3 2001 282,175 282,175 125,538 30,137 156,637
4 2002 190,321 190,321 119,425 48,848 70,896
5 2003 190,654 121,039 76,263 8,672 44,776
6 2004 170,014 31,983 NA NA NA
7 2005 100,043 99,043 84840 NA 15,203
8 2006 141,339 141,339 96,449 NA 44,840
9 2007 301,046 203,928 198,851 120,122 144,453
10 2008 264,554 213,640 202,225 172,321 50,914
11 2009 283,676 241,095 211,234 198,254 42,581
12 2010 242,225 213,085 183,546 152,643 29,539
Source: Department of Intelligence, Investigation & Monitoring (CCB)