1. BANK EMPLOYEES AND ASSETS DECLARATION LAW
INTRODUCTION:
Corruption has become the main stay of staffers in most government agencies and even
establishments in the Private Sector of our economy. Successive Governments have
continually struggled to curb this unwholesome behaviour by enacting laws geared at
stemming this decadence of corruption. Bodies have been created to fight this scourge,
called corruption. There have been bodies like the ICPC (Independent Corrupt Practices
Commission), and the EFCC (Economic and Financial Crimes Commission), all in the bid to
contain and reduce corruption to its barest minimum. During the military era, particularly
under the regime of Late General Sani Abacha, the Failed Banks Tribunal became
operative to check the excesses of bank executives. All of these efforts have in one way or
the other been partially or in some cases completely frustrated.
A cursory look at most daily newspapers would afford us a peep into the magnitude of
corruption in our society. No sector of the economy is left out, regardless of the position or
status of individuals, corruption has continued to thrive especially in our new democratic
dispensation. High-ranking officers in government agencies have been indicted from the
Presidency, to federal and state governments. The story of the resignation of the Inspector
General of Police (I.G.P.) has recently made headlines, not for heroic acts of seeing his
operation fire for fire achieve maximum results but for alleged acts of corruption. He is
currently standing trial in a court of law. The Governor of Plateau State is also in the news
for alleged acts of corruption and so is Chief Adolphus Wabara Former President of the
Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria who is being tried in a court of law on allegations
bothering on corrupt practices. The former Minister of Education Professor Fabian Osuji is
also facing trial for alleged acts of corruption. The list is inexhaustive.
It is not strange that most of these cases of corruption almost always involve banks and
bank employees. In Dariye’s case alone five banks where mentioned in different corrupt
transactions involving the transfer and conversion of public funds to private funds. Even in
our so called advance fee fraud cases, (popularly known as 419), banks and their
employees have played major roles in aiding these financial acrobats. The reason for this is
not far fetched. Banks and their employees see themselves as operating in an environment
where no regulatory policies or laws are put in place or implemented to check acts of
corruption.
The incidents of bank failures and distressed banks which occurred in the late eighties and
early nineties, is still fresh in our memory. This distress was mostly caused by bank owners,
bankers and bank staff and in some cases, in conjunction with other members of both the

2. public and private sectors. It was a period of grief in the financial sector of the economy.
During this period, banks sprang up in all nooks and crannies of our country. It was an era
of financial chaos, in a society that had not put in place the necessary machinery to ensure
a smooth running of such institutions and consequent on such a vacuum was the ugly
monster called corruption. Most of these bread and butter institutions became distressed,
due to unjust enrichment of employees.
Because of this unwholesome pattern of corruption, the federal government had to wade in,
to bring about some sanity. Lots of decrees to regulate the banking sector where enacted
and various tribunals set up in a bid to check this wanton disregard of integrity, honesty and
transparency, in a sector as sensitive as the financial sector.
It was for this purpose that the federal government deemed it fit to enact an Act to check
unjust enrichment and other corrupt practices of bank employees. It was one of the
measures put in place by the federal government to regulate banking operations in the
country. The Act is known as Bank Employees etc/Declaration of Assets Act Cap 27 Laws
of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990 (hereinafter called BEDA). BEDA though appears
relatively unknown, will go a long way in checking corrupt practices in Banks, if implemented
to the letter. We concede that our problem has not been that of enactment of laws, but in
implementation and this may account for the reason why this elegantly drafted and well-
intentioned Act has been moribund. To appreciate the purport of the Act, it may be
imperative to look at some of its major provisions.
PROVISIONS OF BANK EMPLOYEES ETC DECLARATION OF ASSETS ACT (BEDA)
BEDA basically provides for declaration of assets of employees of banks operating in
Nigeria, and in some cases, its application may extend to other category of persons.
BEDA makes it mandatory for every employee of a bank to make full disclosure of all his
assets; that is, every bank employee is to make such disclosures of all his assets at the time
of his assuming duty, whether it is a new employment or a transfer from one institution to
another. And such disclosures, are meant to be a continuous exercise, which will be done
on the anniversary of the initial declaration and every subsequent year thereafter, such an
employee must make declarations of all assets acquired or disposed of during the
immediate preceding year to which the declaration relates. See Section 4(1) BEDA.
Such declarations as required by the BEDA shall extend to a period of two (2) years after
the determination of such a declarant’s employment with the bank. In this way hidden
wealth, which more often than not is flaunted after the determination of such employment is
still investigated, checked and evaluated and where discrepancies exist, the law will be

3. applied and any property confiscated becomes state property, with punishment metted out
to such an individual. The main purpose of Section 4(4) is to ensure that the employee’s
status remains within his provable income and assets. This is definitely a welcome
development, in a country where corruption and show of wealth enhances one’s social
status.
OFFENCES UNDER THE BEDA
The BEDA being a regulatory law provides for penalties for the breach of its provisions. This
is to command obedience and conformity with the provisions of the law to make for a
transparent and purposeful service oriented sector of the economy and to make it conducive
and attractive for investors both within and outside the country. To aid transparency the
BEDA deems it an offence for an employee of a bank to own assets in excess of his
legitimate, known and provable income and assets, with a penalty of 10 years
imprisonment. On conviction, such an employee is made to forfeit the excess assets or its
equivalent in money to the government. See Section 8(1) BEDA.
However, in arriving at the excess in assets of an employee, certain things are taken into
account to determine assets, which actually forms part of his legitimate, known and
provable income and assets. Such income and assets, may include salaries, allowances,
returns on investment, gifts, donations and bequests received by him.
By implication, any of the employees’ income or asset not provable under any of his known
and provable income, is an excess, which by virtue of the Act becomes the property of the
“state” and is forfeited by such an employee, upon conviction. See Section 8(2) BEDA.
In other to ascertain excess or provable income or asset of any employee, the employee as
the law provides must continue to make declarations, such declarations must represent the
true position of the employee’s income and assets. Failure to give a true state of affairs may
be adverse to the employee, which may make such an employee liable on conviction to
imprisonment for a term of 10 years. In such cases where full disclosure has not been
made, such undisclosed assets/income are forfeited to the federal government. See
Section 8(1)(d) BEDA.
The draftsmen went further by taking into consideration acts done by other individuals on
behalf of bank employees, in a manner prejudicial to achieving the objects of the BEDA.
Actions of this nature constitute the offence of “fronting” and is punishable on conviction
by imprisonment for seven (7) years and in addition the guilty person forfeits such
proceeds/gratification to the federal government. See Section 9(1)(a) BEDA.

4. It is worthy of note to mention that the BEDA again goes further to regulate banking
operations, especially as they relate to dealings in the foreign exchange market. This has
become one of the most sensitive and lucrative branches of the banking sector and
definitely one of the easiest departments where bank employees perpetrate their corrupt
practices. See Section 10(1) BEDA.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In a supposedly lawless society as ours, with corruption as one of our major export
products, efforts to curb corruption in line with the provisions of BEDA is a welcome
development. This portrays our society in a progressive manner, not in the normal Nigerian
way, which would have been to water corruption, let it grow and become comfortable with it.
Having made such bold steps to check corruption in theory, it would be commendable if we
ascend the rungs of the ladder and be seen not just as policy makers but also as
implementers of policies, especially in our bid to woo foreign investors. We must make
these investors comfortable enough to bring in the much desired foreign exchange as much
as we must bolster confidence in our financial institutions. We must be seen to be serious
minded in our bid to make our economy attractive and fertile. It is for this reason that we
recommend that there be a strict compliance with the provisions of the BEDA.
Where there is confidence, honesty and transparency in our financial institutions and in our
dealings with third parties, then we need not spend so much time, money and effort to
continue to woo in foreign investors.
The Act which is all encompassing makes it also mandatory for the Governor of the apex
bank (Central Bank of Nigeria) to declare his assets. Our investigations shows that the
Governor of Central Bank had already declared his assets under the Code of Conduct
Bureau and Tribunal Act Cap 56, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990. It is however our
opinion that he may still need to declare his assets in compliance with the provisions of
BEDA. This is because of the interpretation given to Banks and their Chief Executive under
Section 15 of the BEDA.
Our candid advice would be that all employees of the banking sector and all other financial
institutions comply with the provisions, contained in the BEDA. Further, a regulatory body,
should be established to ensure compliance with the provisions of the act. This is imperative
for the following reasons:
(1) There must be a system for monitoring conduct and exposing contravention under
the Act.

5. (2) The system must be able to assess and compile charges for wrongdoing under the
Act with a view to punishing offenders
(3) There must be a further system or framework for constituting and insulating the
institutions of oversight, exposure and punishment so that they cannot be subverted
by the very actors they are supposed to be controlling.
The power to make regulations under the Act and also to set up a regulatory body for the
purpose of ensuring compliance with the Act falls squarely on the President and
Commander In-chief of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. See Section 14 BEDA, we
therefore urge the president to take urgent steps to sanitize the private sector of our
economy, beginning with the banks and other financial institutions.
We also believe that when such a body is established it would help reduce and simplify the
job of such already existing bodies as the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission
(EFCC) and the (ICPC) Independent Corrupt Practices Commission, in that a data base to
work with will already be on ground. All that may be needed would be continuous
verification and updates on compliance. The era of laws remaining only on the pages of our
statute books, should gradually give way to strict application and implementation of the rule
of law. We have started a journey and the destination should be seen to be within sight of a
distance.
BY:
1. SYLVA OGWEMOH –
SENIOR PARTNER
MARINE PARTNERS
SOLICITORS
AND
2. STEVE OSSAI –
ASSOCIATE
MARINE PARTNERS
SOLICITORS