While the Proceeds of Crime (Recovery and Management) Bill offers some hopes of reforming the warp asset recovery architecture, there is a
legislative dilemma of choosing between multiple ineffective anti-corruption agencies or creating a new one, AZIMAZI MOMOH JIMOH reports.

Nigeria’s asset recovery landscape has long been fragmented. Currently, no fewer than 18 government bodies, including the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), the Nigeria Customs Service, and others, are involved in the recovery, management, and disposal of assets unearthed and seized through anti-corruption efforts.
 
This dispersion raises a crucial policy question: Should Nigeria create a brand-new, centralised agency solely dedicated to overseeing recovered assets, or should it strengthen and hold accountable the existing institutions already legally mandated to handle them?
 
Last week, the Senate took a step by advancing the Proceeds of Crime (Recovery and Management) Bill, 2025, which seeks to establish a single national agency for the administration of recovered assets. The bill has been forwarded to the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights, and Legal Matters for detailed scrutiny, with a four-week deadline for further review following its successful second reading.
 
If passed, the legislation would consolidate the asset recovery and management functions currently distributed across multiple agencies into one central body. This proposed agency would be responsible for developing an automated tracking system, establishing a centralised database, and creating standardised procedures to enhance legal clarity, transparency, and accountability in the handling of recovered assets.
 
Proponents of the bill, who are looking toward a centralised body, argued that a single, specialised agency could significantly streamline Nigeria’s asset recovery system by reducing bureaucratic overlap, eliminating duplication, and improving coordination among law enforcement and regulatory bodies. Centralisation, they suggest, would make it easier to track and manage high-value assets systematically, reducing the risk of mismanagement, theft or disappearance.
 
These advocates believe that a dedicated institution with a clear legal and operational mandate would improve efficiency and enhance public trust. Furthermore, they contend that a centralised structure could standardise processes and reporting, ensuring that Nigeria meets international anti-corruption and anti-money laundering obligations, such as those under the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC).
 
However, critics are quick to warn that the bill’s logic may contradict President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration’s reform agenda, particularly its commitment to implementing the Stephen Oronsaye Committee Report, which called for rationalising Nigeria’s bloated public sector by merging overlapping agencies to reduce governance costs.
 
Establishing a new agency now, they argued, risks introducing redundant bureaucracy rather than addressing inefficiencies. As Senator Emmanuel Udende and other lawmakers pointed out, the real challenge may not lie in institutional dispersion, but in weak coordination, lack of oversight and insufficient accountability.  
 
Strengthening the mandates, operational capacities, and governance mechanisms of existing bodies like the EFCC and ICPC could be a more coherent and cost-effective approach. At best, the new body could be a department in one of the existing agencies.
 
There are also credible fears of political interference. Centralising control over vast, valuable assets within a single body raises the risk of elite capture, particularly if the agency’s leadership appointments are not adequately insulated from executive or political influence.
 
Analysts caution that centralisation does not inherently prevent abuse but merely shifts the locus of potential corruption. Another pressing concern is the potential disempowerment of established anti-corruption institutions. The EFCC and ICPC possess institutional memory, highly trained personnel, and well-developed operational frameworks for asset tracking and recovery; therefore, stripping them of their asset management roles could undermine morale, erode operational effectiveness, and hinder inter-agency cooperation outcomes that could weaken the country’s wider anti-corruption efforts.
 
Complicating the picture further is the absence of a detailed legal and operational framework for the proposed new agency. Without a robust technological infrastructure, clear lines of authority, harmonised protocols, and specialised personnel, the centralisation effort could backfire, worsening inefficiencies, increasing delays, and sparking jurisdictional disputes.
 
A further layer of criticism has to do with the potential loss of regional and local insight. Nigeria’s corruption challenges vary significantly across regions, and local intelligence is often essential if enforcement must be effective.
 
Critics are also warning that an overly centralised, Abuja-based agency may become detached from grassroots realities, hence lulling anti-corruption efforts by sidelining local knowledge and networks.
 
Whatever the case may be, both pathways involve trade-offs. Centralisation, many contend, might simplify structures but concentrate power and risk, while enhancing existing agencies could preserve institutional diversity but perpetuate fragmentation.
 
By implication, the challenge is not merely one of institutional design but of ensuring that Nigeria’s anti-corruption system, whether centralised or decentralised, delivers transparent, accountable, and effective management of recovered assets for the benefit of Nigerians.
 
The bill’s sponsor, Senator Idiat Oluranti Adebule (Lagos West), has also emphasised its potential for greater transparency and accountability. A unified database and reporting structure, she contended, would allow for consistent public disclosures and heightened oversight.
 
She also argued that the agency would benefit from professionalised management by housing specialised experts in asset valuation, legal processing and disposal.
 
That said, Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) have presented a nuanced view, with many of them acknowledging the inefficiencies of the current decentralised model but cautioning that centralisation must be executed with safeguards.  
 
Some representatives of CSOs, who spoke to The Guardian, urged lawmakers to entrench strong legal and institutional protections in the final legislation.
 
These include clearly defined powers and limitations, public reporting mandates, and independent audit mechanisms. The National Assembly and the Office of the Auditor-General, they suggested, must be empowered to conduct periodic reviews of the agency’s operations.
 
The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) reiterated these sentiments, urging the Senate to ensure that the agency’s creation is accompanied by guarantees of transparency and merit-based appointments.
 
The National Coordinator of HURIWA, Emmanuel Onwubiko, who queried the performance quotient of existing institutions like the EFCC and ICPC, added that if they are deemed to have failed in transparency and accountability, then a reform is justified, but it must be done right.
 
Onwubiko stressed the need for an agency that is not just new, but demonstrably better staffed and manned by competent, apolitical professionals who are guided by international best practices.
 
He added that establishing such a body does not necessarily contravene the Oronsaye Report, particularly if it leads to a more cost-effective and integrity-driven asset management regime.
 
Similarly, Eye on Legislature, an Abuja-based CSO focused on legislative quality, described the Senate’s move as a “bold but delicate” reform initiative.
 
The group warned that the real test lies in implementation, that is, ensuring that the new agency does not replicate or complicate issues that it was designed to solve.
 
Its leader, Ajekere Uwan, emphasised that the ongoing legislative review process must prioritise institutional safeguards to protect against the perils of political capture and administrative redundancy.
 
Underlying the bill is a broader dissatisfaction with the performance of current institutions in managing recovered assets.   Although both the EFCC and ICPC have made tangible gains in asset recovery, questions persist about the transparency and accountability of their operations, particularly concerning the final disposition of recovered assets.
 
Public reports and media investigations have highlighted inconsistencies and opacity in the handling of these assets, fueling public scepticism and eroding trust.
 
It is in light of the foregoing that the Chairman of ICPC, Dr. Musa Adamu Aliyu (SAN), has been speaking on the importance of enhanced inter-agency collaboration.
 
At a dialogue hosted by the Centre for Fiscal Transparency and Public Integrity (CFTPI), Aliyu called for greater regional and international cooperation to trace and recover assets beyond Nigeria’s borders.  He emphasised that collective action among African nations is essential to reclaiming stolen wealth hidden abroad.
 
In sum, while the Proceeds of Crime (Recovery and Management) Bill offers the promise of reforming Nigeria’s asset recovery architecture, it also introduces significant challenges.
 
The debate revealed a critical tension between the need for centralised efficiency and the imperatives of institutional independence, transparency, and regional inclusiveness.
 
As legislative deliberations continue, stakeholders agree on one point – the goal should not merely be to create another agency but to establish a more effective, accountable, and transparent system for managing Nigeria’s recovered assets.
 
Whether the bill can deliver on that promise will ultimately depend on the integrity of its final form and the rigour of its implementation.  While the bill, among other legislative ventures currently pending before the Senate, seriously tests the competence and character of the 10th Senate, the leadership of the Senate is struggling to meet up with some salient constitutional matters, without which its actions may be voided.
 
There are concerns about the recurring pattern of low attendance at plenary sessions in both chambers of the National Assembly.   This is dangerous, particularly at a time the legislature is racing against time to conclude and pass critical amendments to the Electoral Act and the 1999 Constitution. Moreover, these reforms are expected to lay the legal foundation for the 2027 general elections.
  
It is this low attendance at plenary by lawmakers that pushed the Policy and Legal Advocacy Centre (PLAC) to raise serious concerns about the legitimacy or even legality of decisions taken under such conditions.
 
Section 54(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provides that the quorum of the Senate or the House of Representatives is one-third of the entire members of the House.
 
For the House of Representatives, that means at least 120 of the 360 members, and for the Senate, a minimum of 36 senators are required. These thresholds are not just formalities.
 
The Executive Director of PLAC, Clement Nwankwo, stated that attendance and forming of the required quorum “are constitutional safeguards intended to ensure deliberative legitimacy and representative governance. Yet, both chambers have, on various occasions, proceeded with debates, motions, and even the passage of bills in circumstances that strongly suggest these thresholds were not met.”
 
However, the President of the Senate, Godswill Akpabio, insisted that the Senate is “prioritising legislation that impacts the everyday lives of Nigerians.”
 
Among key legislative achievements, he cited the Student Loan Act, Tax Reform, and the Minimum Wage Bills.
 
“In just two years, we have done a lot. But more people-focused laws are on the way; laws that will ease hardship, open up the economy, and empower our youth,” Akpabio added.