The Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) has called for greater emphasis on preventive measures, institutional safeguards and innovative strategies to tackle corruption before it translates into corrupt practices.
The Chairman of the Commission, Dr Musa Adamu Aliyu, SAN, made the call on Tuesday during the Fourth International Diplomatic Dialogue organised by the Anti-Corruption Academy of Nigeria (ACAN), the research and training arm of the ICPC, at the Commission’s headquarters in Abuja.
The dialogue, themed “Development of Anti-Corruption Strategies and Policies: The Russian National Experience,” featured the Minister Counsellor/Charge d’Affaires of the Embassy of the Russian Federation in Nigeria, Mr Igor Ivannikov, who shared Russia’s experience in developing and implementing preventive, legal and enforcement measures against corruption.
Aliyu said corruption remained a major threat to development, stressing the need for anti-corruption institutions to continuously explore practical approaches that strengthen institutions, promote transparency and accountability, and build public confidence.
He said Nigeria could benefit from comparative international experiences by studying best practices and adapting innovative anti-corruption approaches to its local 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,” he said.
The ICPC chairman urged participants to translate lessons from the diplomatic dialogue into concrete actions that would strengthen institutions and improve anti-corruption outcomes.
He added that the knowledge exchanged during the engagement should extend beyond the conference hall and contribute to stronger institutions, enhanced public trust and national development.
Russia Highlights Preventive Measures
Presenting Russia’s anti-corruption experience, Ivannikov said an effective anti-corruption framework must combine the punishment of offences already committed with measures designed to address the conditions that allow corruption to thrive.
He identified income and asset declarations by designated categories of public officials, expenditure monitoring and conflict-of-interest prevention as key preventive instruments within Russia’s system.
According to him, financial declarations allow authorities to compare the legitimate income of public officials with their actual financial and property holdings.
The Russian diplomat also identified anti-corruption reviews of legislation as another preventive mechanism, explaining that the process helps identify provisions that could create opportunities for corruption, including excessive official powers, unjustified discretion and unclear administrative procedures.
On public procurement, Ivannikov said Russia had increasingly deployed digital platforms and risk-based monitoring to promote transparency in procurement and contract administration.
He, however, cautioned that digitalisation alone could not eliminate corruption without effective oversight, access to information and accountability for violations.
He further listed codes of ethics, conflict-of-interest procedures, designated anti-corruption compliance officers and regular corruption-risk assessments among the internal institutional measures required for effective prevention.
On enforcement, he said Russia’s anti-corruption framework included investigation of corruption-related offences, tracing and freezing of illicit assets, prosecution and judicial determination of cases.
Earlier, the Provost of ACAN, Prof. Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim, provided the background to the dialogue, highlighting the evolution of Russia’s anti-corruption legal and institutional framework.
Ibrahim identified some of the country’s major anti-corruption laws as the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, Code of Administrative Offences, Federal Law on Civil Service and Federal Law on Combating Corruption.
He said the laws provide part of the legal framework guiding Russia’s anti-corruption institutions.
The ACAN provost also highlighted institutions involved in the country’s anti-corruption architecture, including the Presidential Council for Countering Corruption, Presidential Civil Service, Personnel and Anti-Corruption Directorate, Prosecutor General’s Office, Investigative Committee, Ministry of Justice, Federal Security Service, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Accounts Chamber.
He particularly highlighted the role of the Prosecutor General’s Office, noting that specialised units for supervising the implementation of anti-corruption legislation were established within the Office and prosecutors’ offices at constituent-entity level in 2007.
Ibrahim also noted Russia’s contribution to the establishment and continued support of the International Anti-Corruption Academy, stressing the importance of specialised training and institutional capacity building in sustaining anti-corruption efforts.
