Get Guardian on GoogleThe Africa Network for Environment and Economic Justice (ANEEJ) and other stakeholders, has identified gaps in Nigeria’s asset recovery data management system.
They said the gaps, including fragmented agency databases, weak reporting compliance and limited public access to asset recovery records, could undermine transparency and accountability in the management of recovered public resources.
Executive Director of ANEEJ, David Ugolor, Davidp Ugolor, disclosed this in Abuja, at the stakeholder briefing on a comparative analysis report, themed: “Peer Learning from Different Jurisdictions on Data Management in Asset Recovery”.
The briefing brought together participants from the Federal Ministry of Justice/Asset Recovery and Management Unit, relevant organisations listed in POCA, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, civil society and the media.
Ugolor called for stronger inter-agency coordination, improved legal enforcement and greater public access to information on recovered assets.
He said ANEEJ studied asset recovery data management systems in the United Kingdom, Italy, France and the United States, comparing their practices with Nigeria’s legal framework and existing arrangements.
He said that although Nigeria had established a legal framework for asset recovery through the Proceeds of Crime (Recovery and Management) Act, 2022, challenges remained in implementing a coordinated and transparent data management system.
He explained that recovering assets was only one aspect of the process, stressing that relevant institutions, courts, citizens and development partners needed reliable information on assets identified, frozen, seized or forfeited, their location, management and eventual utilisation.
Ugolor said: “Nigeria has a substantial legal foundation. Second, there is progress, and there are gaps. Some agencies are already uploading data to the central database, while others, as of April 2026, were still finalising access and internal system arrangements, yet others have not started.
“The database is not yet available to the public through a user-friendly portal, and the legal basis for requiring every agency to report to a single national database needs authoritative clarification.”
Ugolor identified the absence of a common asset identification system, standardised procedures for recording case milestones and effective reconciliation of records with court orders, physical custody and the Confiscated and Forfeited Properties Account as areas requiring attention.
He said the experiences of the four countries offered useful lessons for Nigeria, although none could be adopted wholesale without considering the country’s legal and institutional realities.
The ANEEJ executive director explained that the United Kingdom uses a shared operational record to generate national statistics, Italy tracks assets beyond confiscation through their reuse and monitored utilisation, France has a specialist national manager linked to police and judicial systems, while the United States assigns unique identification codes to seized assets.
Speaking at the event, an Associate Professor of Defence and Security Studies at the Nigerian Defence Academy, Dr Adejoh Sunday, said Nigeria had made progress in asset recovery but needed stronger mechanisms to ensure compliance with data reporting requirements.
Sunday said the Proceeds of Crime (Recovery and Management) Act provides for about 20 organisations with responsibilities relating to asset recovery.
He explained that the Asset Management Unit (AMU) of the Federal Ministry of Justice manages the national central database, but some agencies had yet to upload their records because of legal and institutional challenges.
Sunday identified the fragmented databases maintained by agencies, including the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) and the Nigeria Customs Service, as a major obstacle to effective coordination.
He called for a centralised database management system that would provide a one-stop source of information for Nigerians and other interested stakeholders seeking details of recovered assets.
Also speaking, the Country Director of Accountability Lab Nigeria, Ode Friday, called for stronger collaboration among the Ministry of Justice, EFCC, the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) and other institutions involved in asset recovery.
Friday said: “We need to strengthen collaboration among government agencies and establish a clearer understanding of how asset recovery translates into accountability and responsible leadership.
“Sometimes, gaps in the management of recovered resources make it difficult to track what happens to them. We must ensure that the national database is effectively monitored so that those who have stolen or looted public funds not only return the proceeds of their crimes but also face justice.”
He observed that despite the existence of a national asset recovery database, many Nigerians remained unaware of how recovered assets were managed and how their proceeds contributed to governance and national development.
According to him, citizens needed to know what happened to assets after forfeiture, how they were disposed of and where the proceeds went.
He questioned whether proceeds from the disposal of recovered assets were paid into government accounts, used to finance the national budget or allocated to development projects in communities affected by the original loss of public resources.
Friday said Nigerians deserved clear answers to such questions as part of efforts to strengthen accountability in public resource management.
He acknowledged the efforts of the ICPC, including its quarterly meetings on asset recovery, but stressed that more needed to be done to establish effective collaboration among relevant institutions.
He also called for stronger monitoring mechanisms to ensure that recovered assets and funds were properly accounted for and that those responsible for stealing public resources faced justice.
