CJN backs forfeiture, seizure of assets derived from crimes

The Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Walter Onnoghen, has
described the forfeiture or confiscation of proceeds of crime as an
anti-corruption tool that conforms to international best
practices.

But the CJN reiterated that forfeiture orders must follow the
provisions of the Nigerian constitution, adding that the predicate
offence must be proved, in accordance with the law, to achieve
conviction-based forfeiture of such criminal proceeds.

He also indicated that non-conviction-based forfeiture was
useful when the defendant absconded or was unavailable for trial
but insisted that such must also be carried out in accordance with
the law.

Justice Onnoghen stated this in his foreword to a publication by
the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption.

The publication is titled, Guidance notes on non-conviction and
conviction-based forfeiture and management of the res in conviction
based forfeiture in Nigeria.

Although, the CJN’s foreword is dated July 2017, the publication
was, among other PACAC-authored documents, distributed to
participants at the advisory committee’s meeting with stakeholders
last Friday.

The CJN, in his short foreword to the publication, reiterated
that forfeiture orders must be in accordance with procedure
stipulated under Chapter IV of the Constitution.

He stated, “Using lessons learnt in the course of strategic
interactions with judicial officers and from comparative case law
in other parts of the Commonwealth, the Presidential Advisory
Committee Against Corruption has produced the Guidance Notes with
support from the Commonwealth Secretariat.

“The Notes provide insightful perspectives on Nigerian statutes
that prescribe conviction and non-conviction based forfeiture.

“As an anti-corruption tool, forfeiture or confiscation of
proceeds of crime is, no doubt, international best practice.

“However, and particularly in relation to conviction-based
forfeiture, the predicate offence must be proved in accordance with
our laws and the Constitution.

“Forfeiture orders must be proved in accordance with our laws
and Chapter IV of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria, 1999.”

He described the note as one that examined the forfeiture issues
and proffered guidance “in lucid and explicit terms on the scope
and application of the laws.”

He added, “Of particular significance to judges and counsels
alike is the analysis of provisions in extant laws on
non-conviction based forfeiture and the steps to be taken in cases
where the defendant absconds or is unavailable for trial.”

In the introductory part of the publication, PACAC said Nigeria
was a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against
Corruption, which provided a legal framework for fighting
corruption and recovering assets.

It stated that the UNCAC, which came into force in 2005, had 181
parties, including Nigeria, being signatories to it.

“Its Chapter V provides a comprehensive asset recovery regime as
an effective sanction against corruption and a fundamental
principle of international law.

“It underscores three basic principles: first, the regime sends
a strong signal that corruption does not pay and that consequences
will follow those who steal from the poor; secondly, it helps to
disrupt the cycle that sustains these organisations and fraudsters;
and also, it allows the stolen funds to be recovered and used to
the benefit of the victim (the people).”

The Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Walter Onnoghen, has
described the forfeiture or confiscation of proceeds of crime as an
anti-corruption tool that conforms to international best
practices.

But the CJN reiterated that forfeiture orders must follow the
provisions of the Nigerian constitution, adding that the predicate
offence must be proved, in accordance with the law, to achieve
conviction-based forfeiture of such criminal proceeds.

He also indicated that non-conviction-based forfeiture was
useful when the defendant absconded or was unavailable for trial
but insisted that such must also be carried out in accordance with
the law.

Justice Onnoghen stated this in his foreword to a publication by
the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption.

The publication is titled, Guidance notes on non-conviction and
conviction-based forfeiture and management of the res in conviction
based forfeiture in Nigeria.

Although, the CJN’s foreword is dated July 2017, the publication
was, among other PACAC-authored documents, distributed to
participants at the advisory committee’s meeting with stakeholders
last Friday.

The CJN, in his short foreword to the publication, reiterated
that forfeiture orders must be in accordance with procedure
stipulated under Chapter IV of the Constitution.

He stated, “Using lessons learnt in the course of strategic
interactions with judicial officers and from comparative case law
in other parts of the Commonwealth, the Presidential Advisory
Committee Against Corruption has produced the Guidance Notes with
support from the Commonwealth Secretariat.

“The Notes provide insightful perspectives on Nigerian statutes
that prescribe conviction and non-conviction based forfeiture.

“As an anti-corruption tool, forfeiture or confiscation of
proceeds of crime is, no doubt, international best practice.

“However, and particularly in relation to conviction-based
forfeiture, the predicate offence must be proved in accordance with
our laws and the Constitution.

“Forfeiture orders must be proved in accordance with our laws
and Chapter IV of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria, 1999.”

He described the note as one that examined the forfeiture issues
and proffered guidance “in lucid and explicit terms on the scope
and application of the laws.”

He added, “Of particular significance to judges and counsels
alike is the analysis of provisions in extant laws on
non-conviction based forfeiture and the steps to be taken in cases
where the defendant absconds or is unavailable for trial.”

In the introductory part of the publication, PACAC said Nigeria
was a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against
Corruption, which provided a legal framework for fighting
corruption and recovering assets.

It stated that the UNCAC, which came into force in 2005, had 181
parties, including Nigeria, being signatories to it.

“Its Chapter V provides a comprehensive asset recovery regime as
an effective sanction against corruption and a fundamental
principle of international law.

“It underscores three basic principles: first, the regime sends
a strong signal that corruption does not pay and that consequences
will follow those who steal from the poor; secondly, it helps to
disrupt the cycle that sustains these organisations and fraudsters;
and also, it allows the stolen funds to be recovered and used to
the benefit of the victim (the people).”