By Julius Peter, Abuja
The Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) has called for greater emphasis on preventive strategies, institutional safeguards and innovative approaches to tackle corruption before it develops into full-fledged corrupt practices.
Chairman of the Commission, Dr. Musa Adamu Aliyu, SAN, made the call on Tuesday in Abuja while speaking at the Fourth International Diplomatic Dialogue organised by the Anti-Corruption Academy of Nigeria (ACAN), the research and training arm of the ICPC.
The dialogue, held at the ICPC headquarters, was themed, “Development of Anti-Corruption Strategies and Policies: The Russian National Experience.”
The event featured the Minister Counsellor/Charge d’Affaires of the Embassy of the Russian Federation in Nigeria, Mr. Igor Ivannikov, who shared insights into Russia’s experience in developing and implementing preventive, legal and enforcement measures to combat corruption.
Dr. Aliyu said corruption remained a major threat to national development, stressing the need for anti-corruption institutions to continuously explore practical strategies that could strengthen institutions, promote transparency and accountability, and restore public confidence.
He said Nigeria could benefit significantly from comparative experiences and international best practices, provided such lessons were carefully examined and adapted to the country’s peculiar realities.
«“As Nigeria continues to deepen its anti-corruption efforts, there is much value in learning from comparative experiences, understanding best practices, and identifying innovative approaches that can be adapted to our local realities,” the ICPC chairman said.»
According to him, the essence of the diplomatic dialogue was not merely to exchange ideas but to ensure that knowledge acquired from international experiences translated into concrete actions capable of strengthening Nigeria’s anti-corruption institutions.
Dr. Aliyu urged participants to ensure that the lessons from the engagement extended beyond the conference hall and contributed to improved anti-corruption outcomes.
«“The knowledge and experience shared today should not end within the walls of this auditorium. Rather, they should inspire practical actions that strengthen our institutions, enhance public trust, and contribute to national and continental development,” he stated.
Presenting Russia’s national experience, Ivannikov said an effective anti-corruption framework required a combination of preventive mechanisms and enforcement measures.
He argued that while the suppression and punishment of corruption offences remained important, criminal sanctions alone could not eliminate the conditions that create opportunities for corrupt practices.
According to him, Russia has deployed a number of preventive instruments, including income and asset declarations by designated categories of public officials, expenditure monitoring and measures aimed at preventing conflicts of interest.
He explained that financial declarations were designed to enable relevant authorities to compare the legitimate income of public officials with their actual financial and property holdings, thereby helping to identify potential inconsistencies and corruption risks.
The Russian diplomat also identified anti-corruption reviews of legislation as another important preventive mechanism.
He said such reviews were designed to identify provisions in laws and regulations that could create opportunities for corruption, particularly where legislation granted excessively broad official powers, allowed unjustified discretion or contained unclear administrative procedures.
On public procurement, Ivannikov said Russia had increasingly embraced digital platforms and risk-based monitoring mechanisms to improve transparency in procurement and contract administration.
He, however, cautioned that digitalisation alone could not eradicate corruption.
According to him, the effectiveness of technology-driven anti-corruption measures depends on the existence of effective oversight mechanisms, access to relevant information and accountability for violations.
He further identified internal institutional safeguards as essential components of an effective preventive framework.
These, he said, included codes of ethics, conflict-of-interest procedures, designated anti-corruption compliance officers and regular assessments of corruption risks within institutions.
While outlining Russia’s enforcement framework, Ivannikov said the country’s approach also involved the investigation of corruption-related crimes, tracing and freezing of illicit assets, prosecution of suspects and the eventual determination of cases by the courts.
Earlier, the Provost of ACAN, Professor Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim, provided the background to the diplomatic dialogue, highlighting the evolution of Russia’s legal and institutional framework for preventing, detecting and addressing corruption.
Professor Ibrahim identified some of Russia’s major contemporary anti-corruption legislation as the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the Code of Administrative Offences, the Federal Law on Civil Service and the Federal Law on Combating Corruption.
He explained that the laws constituted part of the legal architecture within which Russia’s anti-corruption institutions operate.
The ACAN Provost also highlighted the network of institutions involved in Russia’s anti-corruption system.
These, he said, include the Presidential Council for Countering Corruption, the Presidential Civil Service, Personnel and Anti-Corruption Directorate, the Prosecutor General’s Office, Investigative Committee, Ministry of Justice, Federal Security Service, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Accounts Chamber, among others.
Professor Ibrahim particularly drew attention to the role of the Prosecutor General’s Office in Russia’s anti-corruption architecture.
He explained that specialised units responsible for supervising the implementation of anti-corruption legislation were established within the Prosecutor General’s Office and prosecutors’ offices at constituent-entity level in 2007.
According to him, the development was undertaken in line with Article 36 of the United Nations Convention against Corruption.
He said the Russian experience demonstrated the importance of institutional coordination, specialised oversight and sustained capacity development in building an effective anti-corruption system.
Professor Ibrahim also highlighted Russia’s contribution to the establishment and continued support of the International Anti-Corruption Academy.
He stressed that specialised training and institutional capacity development remained critical to sustaining anti-corruption efforts and equipping professionals with the knowledge and skills required to detect, prevent and prosecute corruption.
The Fourth International Diplomatic Dialogue therefore provided a platform for Nigerian and Russian anti-corruption stakeholders to exchange experiences on preventive mechanisms, legal safeguards, institutional oversight, digital tools, financial transparency and enforcement.
The ICPC said the engagement was part of broader efforts to strengthen knowledge-sharing and promote practical approaches capable of improving Nigeria’s anti-corruption framework.
The Commission maintained that greater emphasis on prevention, combined with effective investigation and enforcement, would help address corruption risks at their source while strengthening transparency, accountability and public trust in public institutions.
