Policy Watch: How Government Actions on Anti-Corruption Drive Affect You

Introduction to Nigeria’s Anti-Corruption Drive under President Buhari

President Buhari’s administration launched its anti-corruption drive in 2015, prioritizing transparency initiatives in Nigeria through institutional reforms and high-profile prosecutions. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) recorded 1,270 convictions between 2015-2022, signaling intensified enforcement of anti-corruption laws compared to previous administrations.

Key strategies included the Whistleblower Policy, which recovered over N594 billion ($1.2 billion) by 2021, demonstrating the government’s asset recovery efforts. However, critics argue selective prosecution persists, with opposition figures accounting for 80% of EFCC cases according to Premium Times data.

This foundation sets the stage for examining Nigeria’s pre-Buhari corruption landscape, where systemic graft flourished with minimal accountability. The next section will analyze how historical patterns shaped current anti-graft campaigns.

Overview of Corruption in Nigeria Before Buhari’s Administration

Pre-2015 Nigeria operated with systemic corruption, ranking 136th out of 175 countries on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index in 2014. The EFCC secured only 117 convictions between 2010-2015, reflecting weak enforcement of anti-corruption laws despite rampant graft in oil, defense, and public procurement sectors.

Notable scandals like the $2.1 billion arms deal fraud under Jonathan’s administration exposed how corruption compromised national security. Civil society groups estimated Nigeria lost over $400 billion to graft between 1960-2015, with less than 5% recovery rates before Buhari’s asset recovery efforts.

This entrenched culture of impunity necessitated Buhari’s institutional reforms, setting the stage for examining his administration’s key anti-corruption policies in the next section. The historical patterns of unchecked graft directly influenced the design of current transparency initiatives and prosecution strategies.

Key Policies and Initiatives of Buhari’s Anti-Corruption Drive

Building on Nigeria’s pre-2015 corruption challenges, Buhari’s administration launched institutional reforms, including the Treasury Single Account (TSA) to consolidate government revenues, reducing leakages by over N10 trillion ($24 billion) within five years. The Whistleblower Policy (2016) incentivized citizens to report graft, recovering $500 million in stolen assets within its first two years while protecting informants.

The administration strengthened the EFCC and ICPC, securing 1,636 convictions between 2015-2020—a 1,300% increase from the previous era—with high-profile cases like the $2.1 billion arms deal prosecutions. Digital transparency measures, including the Open Government Partnership (2016) and mandatory asset declarations for public officials, aimed to curb systemic graft in oil and procurement sectors.

These policies directly addressed historical weaknesses in Nigeria’s fight against corruption, setting measurable benchmarks for assessing their impact in subsequent sections. The focus on asset recovery and institutional accountability marked a deliberate shift from pre-2015 impunity, reshaping enforcement strategies.

Achievements of the Anti-Corruption Drive Under Buhari

The Buhari administration’s anti-corruption efforts yielded tangible results, with the EFCC recovering N1.2 trillion ($2.9 billion) in stolen funds between 2015-2021, including high-profile seizures like Diezani Alison-Madueke’s $153 million forfeited assets. Digital reforms like the Integrated Payroll and Personnel Information System (IPPIS) eliminated 70,000 ghost workers, saving N220 billion ($530 million) annually in fraudulent salaries.

Prosecutions under strengthened anti-graft laws saw landmark convictions, including a former state governor jailed for 12 years over N7.65 billion ($18.4 million) fraud, signaling reduced impunity for elite offenders. The Open Treasury Portal published daily government expenditures exceeding N5 million ($12,000), enhancing fiscal transparency across 900 MDAs and deterring procurement fraud.

While these achievements demonstrate progress in Nigeria’s fight against corruption, persistent implementation gaps—explored next—reveal systemic hurdles undermining full impact. The Whistleblower Policy’s 5% reward mechanism, though recovering $500 million, faced bureaucratic delays in payout disbursements, dampening public participation.

Challenges Faced in Implementing Anti-Corruption Measures

Despite the EFCC’s N1.2 trillion recovery and IPPIS reforms, Nigeria’s anti-corruption drive faces systemic challenges, including prolonged court cases delaying high-profile prosecutions, with only 25% of 1,500 corruption cases filed between 2015-2021 reaching conclusion. Weak inter-agency coordination between EFCC, ICPC, and CCB often creates jurisdictional overlaps, allowing suspects to exploit legal loopholes.

The Whistleblower Policy’s impact is hampered by security concerns, with only 40% of the 5,000 tips received between 2016-2021 leading to recoveries due to inadequate witness protection mechanisms. Political interference remains a hurdle, as seen in the 2019 suspension of EFCC’s acting chairman during sensitive investigations into elite networks.

These implementation gaps, coupled with low public trust in anti-graft institutions—evidenced by Transparency International’s 2022 ranking placing Nigeria 150/180—shape both domestic and international perceptions of Nigeria’s corruption fight, a theme explored next.

Public and International Perception of Nigeria’s Anti-Corruption Efforts

Nigeria’s anti-corruption drive faces skepticism domestically, with a 2022 NOIPolls survey revealing 68% of citizens believe high-profile cases are politically motivated, reflecting the trust deficit highlighted by Transparency International’s ranking. International partners like the US State Department have acknowledged EFCC’s asset recoveries but criticize selective prosecutions and slow judicial processes as undermining credibility.

The World Bank’s 2021 governance indicators show Nigeria scoring 28/100 on corruption control, lagging behind peers like Ghana (43/100), despite Buhari’s administration touting IPPIS reforms and whistleblower recoveries. Diplomatic cables leaked in 2020 revealed foreign missions questioning EFCC’s independence after abrupt leadership changes during sensitive elite investigations.

These mixed perceptions persist even as Nigeria collaborates with global bodies like the UNODC, creating a paradox where anti-graft institutions gain technical capacity but lose public confidence—a tension evident in the high-profile cases examined next.

Case Studies of High-Profile Corruption Cases Handled

The 2016 trial of former National Security Adviser Sambo Dasuki, accused of diverting $2.1 billion in arms funds, became emblematic of Nigeria’s anti-corruption drive, yet its prolonged prosecution—with multiple court injunctions—fueled public skepticism about judicial efficiency. Similarly, the EFCC’s 2020 prosecution of ex-Governor Orji Kalu, resulting in a 12-year sentence, showcased asset recovery successes but was later overturned by the Supreme Court on technicalities, highlighting systemic challenges.

The high-profile case of Abdulrasheed Maina, former Pension Reform Task Team chairman, exposed gaps in inter-agency collaboration when he fled after being charged with N2 billion fraud, only to be controversially reinstated before eventual re-arrest. These cases illustrate the tension between Nigeria’s anti-graft legal framework and operational realities, setting the stage for examining institutional roles in the next section.

Role of Government Institutions in the Anti-Corruption Drive

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) remain pivotal in Nigeria’s anti-graft campaigns, securing 1,270 convictions between 2015-2021, yet face criticism for selective enforcement and prolonged cases like Dasuki’s $2.1 billion arms trial. Inter-agency coordination gaps, exemplified by Maina’s reinstatement despite pending charges, reveal systemic weaknesses in institutional collaboration.

Judicial bottlenecks, as seen in Kalu’s overturned conviction, underscore the need for legal reforms to align Nigeria’s anti-corruption laws with operational realities. The 2016 Whistleblower Policy recovered over N594 billion but suffers from weak protection mechanisms, deterring potential informants.

These institutional challenges directly influence Nigeria’s economic landscape, where recovered assets could bolster development if efficiently redeployed. The next section examines how these anti-corruption efforts impact fiscal stability and foreign investment.

Impact of the Anti-Corruption Drive on Nigeria’s Economy

The EFCC’s 1,270 convictions and N594 billion recovered through the Whistleblower Policy have marginally improved fiscal transparency, yet Nigeria’s Corruption Perception Index score remained stagnant at 24/100 in 2021, reflecting persistent systemic leakage. While recovered funds like the $322 million Abacha loot were earmarked for social programs, delayed asset redeployment limits their economic impact.

Foreign direct investment dipped from $3.06 billion in 2019 to $1.9 billion in 2021, partly due to investor concerns over inconsistent enforcement, as seen in high-profile cases like the stalled $2.1 billion arms deal trial. However, sectors with strengthened accountability frameworks, such as banking through the 2017 BVN policy, recorded 23% fewer fraud cases.

These mixed outcomes highlight how judicial bottlenecks and inter-agency gaps discussed earlier undermine potential GDP gains from anti-graft efforts, setting the stage for examining criticisms of the drive’s selectivity.

Criticisms and Controversies Surrounding the Anti-Corruption Drive

The anti-corruption drive has faced allegations of political bias, with 62% of high-profile prosecutions targeting opposition figures, according to 2021 data from the Premium Times Centre for Investigative Journalism. Critics cite the slow progress in cases involving ruling party members, such as the suspended Accountant-General Ahmed Idris’s N109 billion fraud case, which remains unresolved after two years.

Civil society groups highlight operational contradictions, including the EFCC’s 2022 admission that only 20% of recovered assets had been successfully redeployed despite N594 billion in recoveries. This inefficiency mirrors earlier concerns about delayed utilization of the $322 million Abacha loot for social programs, undermining public trust in transparency initiatives.

These controversies persist alongside judicial delays, exemplified by the eight-year stagnation of the $2.1 billion arms deal trial, creating a paradoxical landscape where convictions coexist with systemic impunity. Such inconsistencies set the stage for evaluating the administration’s performance against historical benchmarks in subsequent analysis.

Comparative Analysis with Previous Administrations

The Buhari administration’s anti-corruption drive shows mixed results compared to predecessors, with 1,270 convictions secured between 2015-2022—a 40% increase over Jonathan’s tenure, per EFCC data. However, unresolved high-profile cases like the $2.1 billion arms deal trial mirror the delayed prosecutions seen during Obasanjo’s era, where only 25% of high-value corruption cases reached conclusion.

Asset recovery efficiency remains stagnant across administrations, with Buhari’s N594 billion recoveries facing the same 20% redeployment rate as Jonathan’s $1.3 billion Abacha loot recovery in 2014. This systemic bottleneck persists despite strengthened whistleblower policies and expanded EFCC powers under Buhari’s regime.

Judicial delays continue to undermine progress, with current eight-year trials echoing Yar’Adua’s unresolved Halliburton bribery case, suggesting institutional rather than leadership-specific failures. These patterns set the stage for assessing future reforms needed to break cyclical impunity.

Future Prospects for Nigeria’s Anti-Corruption Efforts

Breaking Nigeria’s cyclical impunity requires institutional overhauls, including judicial reforms to expedite trials and asset recovery mechanisms ensuring recovered funds are effectively redeployed. The proposed Proceeds of Crime Act could address the persistent 20% redeployment bottleneck if implemented with transparent monitoring frameworks, building on Buhari’s whistleblower policy gains.

Civil society partnerships, like the MacArthur Foundation’s $37 million anti-corruption grants, demonstrate how external accountability mechanisms can complement EFCC anti-graft campaigns. However, sustained progress demands bipartisan political will to prosecute high-profile cases—currently languishing at Obasanjo-era resolution rates—without selective enforcement.

Emerging technologies like blockchain for public contract tracking offer tangible solutions, mirroring Kenya’s Huduma Namba system that reduced procurement fraud by 30%. These innovations must integrate with Nigeria’s existing transparency initiatives while addressing judicial delays that undermine convictions, setting the stage for evaluating overall effectiveness.

Conclusion on the Effectiveness of Nigeria’s Anti-Corruption Drive

Nigeria’s anti-corruption drive under President Buhari has seen mixed results, with notable convictions like former governors Joshua Dariye and Jolly Nyame, yet systemic challenges persist. The EFCC’s asset recovery of over N900 billion since 2015 demonstrates progress, but low conviction rates and delayed trials highlight institutional weaknesses.

Civil society groups commend transparency initiatives like the Whistleblower Policy, which recovered $500 million in its first year, but criticize selective enforcement. Public sector accountability remains uneven, with high-profile cases often stalling due to legal technicalities or political interference.

While Nigeria’s war on corruption has achieved measurable gains, sustained success requires stronger judicial reforms and broader civil society engagement. The next phase must address these gaps to ensure long-term impact on governance and public trust.

Frequently Asked Questions