Anti-Corruption Informationi Sharing (NG0007)

This commitment is to set up two platforms, one for information sharing, co-ordination and synergy among anti-corruption and security agencies and the other, an accurate database of convicted companies and persons in Nigeria as required by the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015.

7. To establish a platform for sharing information among Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs), Anti-Corruption Agencies (ACAs), National Security Advisors (NSA) and financial sector regulators to detect, prevent and disrupt corrupt practices

Language of the commitment as it appears in the action plan:

“This commitment aims to set up two platforms, the first, for information sharing, co-ordination and synergy among anti-corruption and security agencies to detect and prevent corruption; and the second, for maintaining an accurate database of convicted companies and persons in Nigeria as required by the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015”.

Milestones:

7.1: Set up a technology-aided platform for sharing information.

7.2: Regularly update the platform.

7.3: Set up the inter-agency committee to co-ordinate the activities of Anti-Corruption Agencies (ACAs).

7.4: Establish and regularly update database of blacklisted and Convicted Companies and persons.

Start Date: January 2017 End Date: June 2019

Action plan is available here:

Context and Objectives

This commitment aims to institutionalize information-sharing among anticorruption agencies (ACAs) in Nigeria. Prior to the action plan, ACAs in Nigeria could not easily obtain information from each other, and information-sharing was based on informal contacts and relationships. [80] The Technical Unit on Governance and Anti-Corruption Reforms (TUGAR) was set up as a “one stop” federal agency for data, information, policy and diagnostic reports on anticorruption and governance initiatives across all sectors in Nigeria. [81] There was no other institutional or technical mechanism for information-sharing. [82] According to Ladidi Abdul, Head of the Asset Recovery Management Unit in the Federal Ministry of Justice, the lack of coordination among ACAs led to inefficiency, duplication of effort, and in some cases, controversy. [83] In August 2017, for example, the media reported on a number of examples of “inter-agency rivalry” that were hampering President Buhari’s “anti-corruption war.” These included an operation by the State Security Service (SSS) to search the homes of judges allegedly involved in corruption, a task many thought fell clearly within the purview of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). [84]

The commitment was of unclear relevance to OGP values. Although several milestones proposed to share information between inter-governmental agencies, on regularly, updated technological platforms, there was no clarity as to whether this information would be made publicly available. This commitment could thus not be coded for access to information.

The milestones are mostly verifiable. For example, 7.1 and 7.2 identify the technology-aided platform. The milestones could nevertheless be more specific. For example, Milestone 7.2 could have been more measurable by specifying how frequently the technology-aided platform should be updated.

This commitment is expected to have a minor impact. Calls for anticorruption agencies to “join forces” in the fight against corruption predate the commitment. [85] The establishment of an information-sharing platform and an interagency committee are incremental and positive steps toward coordinating the work of Nigeria’s ACAs. However, failure to identify the respective agencies, clarify their legislative mandate (or to undertake legislative reform), and to outline details of the information-sharing platform lower the commitment’s potential impact.

Next Steps

Although this commitment’s focus is important to the fight against corruption, its scope could have been more ambitious. If this continues to be part of the open government agenda in the country, the IRM recommends:

• Making non-sensitive information available to the public;
• A legislative review of the mandate of ACAs;
• Building a system of accountability, whether internal or public facing; and
• Aiming beyond the scope of setting up information-sharing platforms to specifying how agency coordination will be carried out and setting timelines and indicators for coordination activities.

7. To establish a platform for sharing information among Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs), Anti-Corruption Agencies (ACAs), National Security Adviser (NSA) and financial sector regulators to detect, prevent and disrupt corrupt practices

Language of the commitment as it appears in the action plan:

“This commitment aims to set up two platforms, the first, for information sharing, co-ordination and synergy among anti-corruption and security agencies to detect and prevent corruption; and the second, for maintaining an accurate database of convicted companies and persons in Nigeria as required by the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015”.

Milestones:

7.1 Set up a technology-aided platform for sharing information.

7.2 Regularly update the platform.

7.3 Set up the inter-agency committee to co-ordinate the activities of Anti-Corruption Agencies (ACAs).

7.4 Establish and regularly update database of blacklisted and Convicted Companies and persons.

This commitment aimed to institutionalize information sharing among anticorruption agencies (ACAs) in Nigeria. Nigerian ACAs cannot easily obtain information from each other and information sharing is largely based on informal contacts and relationships. ^[74]

This commitment is not implemented. There is no evidence that progress was made on any milestone. To date, law enforcement agencies lack a systematic method to share information in person or technologically. According to Professor Etannibi Alemika, member of the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption, information sharing between agencies works on a referral system where an agency must submit a formal request for information. These requests are not always addressed. ^[75] Competition between agencies also inhibits cooperation. This commitment has not addressed these challenges and has been carried forward into the next action plan.

According to CSO Advisor Stanley Achonu, there was no clear government leadership for implementing the commitment. CSOs working in anticorruption did not advocate for implementation. ^[76] The government did not provide public updates on implementation. Resultantly, CSOs were unclear of the commitment’s status and how to engage. ^[77] As the implementation of the commitment was not pursued due to lack of MDA or CSO interest, the commitment led to no change in access to information by the end of the implementation period. Therefore, this commitment has not opened government.