Nigeria’s corruption crisis has outgrown the familiar excuse of weak laws. The statutes exist. The Constitution is explicit. What now confronts the country is something more troubling: deliberate non-enforcement. At the heart of this failure lies the phenomenon of anticipatory asset declaration, the practice by which incoming public officers declare assets they do not yet own, often running into billions, before assuming office.
This practice has not thrived because the law permits it. It thrives because the state has chosen to look away. In that silence, a constitutional safeguard meant to deter corruption has been repurposed into a laundering device for future theft. Anticipatory declaration is not an accounting error; it is corruption with foresight.
At the centre of this institutional breakdown stands the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB). By routinely accepting implausible declarations without verification, the Bureau has crossed the line from administrative inadequacy into active complicity. Officials who receive, process, and archive fictitious claims without demanding proof are not neutral public servants. In law and in logic, they are enabling corruption by omission.
What the Law Requires—Not Suggests
The legal position is neither vague nor debatable. The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) is unequivocal. Paragraph 11, Part I of the Fifth Schedule mandates public officers to declare their assets truthfully. Truthfulness is not a matter of intention; it is a matter of fact. Declaring assets not owned at the time of filing is falsehood—pure and simple.
More importantly, Paragraph 3(c) of the same Schedule empowers and obligates the CCB to receive, examine, and ensure compliance with asset declarations. Examination is not a favour extended at the Bureau’s discretion; it is a constitutional duty. A system that merely receives forms and files them without interrogation is acting outside the spirit—and arguably outside the scope—of the law.
The Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act reinforces this obligation. False declaration is expressly criminalised. Where breaches appear, investigation and referral to the Code of Conduct Tribunal are not optional; they are mandatory. Anticipatory asset declaration fits squarely within the offence of false declaration. The fact that prosecutions are rare does not legalise the act—it indicts the enforcement architecture.
When Implausible Wealth Raises No Questions
The danger of anticipatory declaration is not theoretical. In a widely reported case, a governor-elect in a state in the South-West declared assets running into several billions before assuming office. Rather than triggering scrutiny, the declaration was celebrated in sections of the press as evidence of extraordinary personal success.
No formal query followed.
No contemporaneous proof was demanded.
No referral was made by the authorities saddled with responsibility.
Later allegations of large-scale treasury looting in that same state cast the earlier declaration in a different light. The anticipatory filing had already done its work: it provided a pre-fabricated defence. Assets acquired with public funds could now be presented as “previously declared.” This was not a failure of journalism, nor a regional indictment; it was an institutional collapse.
From Silence to Accessorial Liability
Under Nigerian criminal principles, liability does not arise only from direct action. Where there is a clear legal duty to act, facilitating an offence by omission can amount to accessorial liability. An oversight body that repeatedly refuses to interrogate obvious falsehoods—despite clear constitutional authority—cannot plausibly claim neutrality.
When implausible declarations are accepted as routine, the message to incoming officials is unmistakable: prepare your defence early. Theft will be easier later.
At that point, regulatory silence ceases to be negligence. It becomes aiding and abetting by design.
International Standards Nigeria Has Accepted
Nigeria’s failure is even more glaring when measured against its international commitments. As a state party to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), Nigeria is obligated to maintain effective systems for financial disclosure, verification of declared assets, and detection of unexplained wealth. Article 8 emphasises integrity in public office; Article 52 specifically requires mechanisms capable of identifying illicit enrichment.
Similarly, best practices promoted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reject paper compliance without proof. Across jurisdictions where asset declaration works, verification is routine, lifestyle audits are normal, and secrecy is limited. Nigeria has accepted these standards on paper, but ignored them in practice.
The Democratic Cost of Looking Away
The damage done by anticipatory asset declaration extends beyond stolen funds. It corrodes public trust and hollows out democracy. When citizens see officials arrive in office already insulated against scrutiny, elections begin to feel ceremonial. Accountability becomes performative. Cynicism deepens.
Asset declaration was designed to reassure the public that those entrusted with power are not exploiting it for personal gain. When it becomes a shield for future looting, the social contract itself is weakened.
2027: A Defining Test
With the 2027 general elections approaching, the question before the republic is stark: will the CCB continue with this slipshod arrangement, or will it finally discharge its constitutional mandate?
Revisiting past anticipatory declarations—especially those involving implausible wealth at the point of entry into office—is no longer optional. It is essential. Equally important is accountability within the Bureau itself. Officials who facilitated falsehoods by silence must not enjoy institutional immunity.
The Question That Will Not Go Away
Nigeria does not need new laws to confront anticipatory asset declaration. The Constitution already speaks. The statutes already criminalise falsehood. International conventions already demand verification.
What remains unresolved is whether the state intends to obey its own laws.
If declaring imaginary billions before assuming office attracts applause rather than scrutiny, then Nigerians must ask: what exactly is asset declaration for—and who benefits from keeping it unverifiable?
Until that question is honestly answered, corruption will continue to arrive in office already absolved.
*Ogundipe is a Public Affairs Analyst, Former President Nigeria and Africa Union of Journalists
