 |
| Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Walter Onnoghen |
The Hon. Chief Justice reiterated that forfeiture orders must follow the provisions of the Nigerian constitution, adding that the predicate offence must be proved, in accordance with the law, to achieve conviction-based forfeiture of such criminal proceeds.
The Hon. Chief justice also indicated that non-conviction-based forfeiture was useful when the defendant absconded or was unavailable for trial but insisted that such must also be carried out in accordance with the law.
The Hon. Chief justice stated this in his foreword to a publication by the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption.
The publication is titled, Guidance notes on non-conviction and conviction-based forfeiture and management of the res in conviction based forfeiture in Nigeria.
Although, the The Hon. Chief justice’s foreword is dated July 2017, the publication was, among other PACAC-authored documents, distributed to participants at the advisory committee’s meeting with stakeholders last Friday.
The Hon. Chief justice, in his short foreword to the publication, reiterated that forfeiture orders must be in accordance with procedure stipulated under Chapter IV of the Constitution.
The Hon. Chief justice stated, “Using lessons learnt in the course of strategic interactions with judicial officers and from comparative case law in other parts of the Commonwealth, the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption has produced the Guidance Notes with support from the Commonwealth Secretariat.
“The Notes provide insightful perspectives on Nigerian statutes that prescribe conviction and non-conviction based forfeiture.
“As an anti-corruption tool, forfeiture or confiscation of proceeds of crime is, no doubt, international best practice.
“However, and particularly in relation to conviction-based forfeiture, the predicate offence must be proved in accordance with our laws and the Constitution.
“Forfeiture orders must be proved in accordance with our laws and Chapter IV of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.”
The Hon. Chief justice described the note as one that examined the forfeiture issues and proffered guidance “in lucid and explicit terms on the scope and application of the laws.”
The Hon. Chief justice added, “Of particular significance to judges and counsels alike is the analysis of provisions in extant laws on non-conviction based forfeiture and the steps to be taken in cases where the defendant absconds or is unavailable for trial.”
In the introductory part of the publication, PACAC said Nigeria was a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, which provided a legal framework for fighting corruption and recovering assets.
It stated that the UNCAC, which came into force in 2005, had 181 parties, including Nigeria, being signatories to it.
“Its Chapter V provides a comprehensive asset recovery regime as an effective sanction against corruption and a fundamental principle of international law.
“It underscores three basic principles: first, the regime sends a strong signal that corruption does not pay and that consequences will follow those who steal from the poor; secondly, it helps to disrupt the cycle that sustains these organisations and fraudsters; and also, it allows the stolen funds to be recovered and used to the benefit of the victim (the people).”
In this article: