By Lemmy Ughegbe, Ph.D

Nigeria has never suffered from a shortage of institutions created to fight corruption. We have the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission. We have the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission. We have the Code of Conduct Bureau. We have the Code of Conduct Tribunal. We have the police. We have courts. We have laws prohibiting practically every conceivable manifestation of public corruption.

Yet corruption has proved remarkably unimpressed.

Now comes another proposition. The leadership of the Code of Conduct Tribunal is pushing for the Tribunal to be transformed into a full fledged National Anti Corruption Court, with seven judicial divisions and 37 judges dedicated to corruption cases.

The attraction is immediately obvious.

The CCT says it inherited about 1,037 unresolved cases, some of which had remained unattended for between five and ten years. Under the proposed arrangement, corruption trials would proceed through a summary procedure designed to conclude cases within six weeks of arraignment.

Six weeks? In a country where politically exposed defendants can spend years travelling through adjournments, preliminary objections, interlocutory appeals and changes of counsel before the substance of allegations against them is determined, six weeks sounds almost revolutionary.

The frustration behind the proposal is therefore understandable.

Justice delayed is not merely justice denied to defendants or victims. In corruption cases, delay can become a defence strategy.

Witnesses disappear. Memories fade. Investigators are transferred. Governments change. Political alliances shift. Public attention moves elsewhere.

Eventually, a scandal that once dominated newspaper headlines becomes another dusty case file.

So, there is merit in asking whether Nigeria needs a judicial structure specifically designed to prevent corruption trials from becoming marathons.

But before creating another institution, we should ask a more uncomfortable question.

Is the absence of a specialised court really the principal reason Nigeria struggles to punish corruption?

That question matters because Nigeria has a familiar response to institutional failure.

We create another institution.

When an agency is ineffective, we establish a committee. When the committee disappoints, we create a task force. When the task force falters, we propose a commission. And when existing courts appear too slow, we contemplate another court.

Institutional multiplication can sometimes disguise institutional weakness.

A National Anti Corruption Court may accelerate trials. But it cannot investigate a case for the EFCC or ICPC. It cannot manufacture evidence that investigators failed to obtain. It cannot rescue a badly drafted charge. It cannot prevent witnesses from being compromised. It cannot replace diligent prosecution. And it cannot guarantee that politically powerful defendants will be treated exactly like ordinary citizens.

Those are the harder parts of the corruption problem.

A judge can decide only the case placed before the court. If investigators bring weak evidence and prosecutors present defective cases, giving the judge six weeks instead of six years will merely produce a faster failure.

That is why the conversation must extend beyond speed.

Nigeria needs competent investigation, professional prosecution and judicial efficiency operating together.

There is another question. What happens after judgment?

A specialised anti corruption court would still exist within Nigeria’s constitutional judicial architecture. Defendants must retain their rights to fair hearing and appeal. Any reform that pursues speed by sacrificing due process would simply exchange one problem for another.

Corruption trials should be swift. They must also be fair. The objective cannot be conviction at all costs. It must be credible justice delivered without unnecessary delay.

There is nevertheless something deeply troubling about a system in which corruption cases can remain unresolved for five or ten years. If the figure of 1,037 inherited cases reported by the CCT tells us anything, it is that the status quo cannot simply be defended.

No serious justice system should regard a decade as a reasonable period for determining whether a public officer violated the law.

But perhaps the more useful lesson is that deadlines should not begin and end with judges. Investigating agencies should have performance standards. Prosecutors should face consequences for habitual incompetence. Courts should control frivolous adjournments.

Defence lawyers should be entitled to deploy every legitimate protection available to their clients, but the administration of justice should not permit procedure to become an instrument for ensuring that substance is never reached.

And where corruption is established, sanctions must be sufficiently certain to deter the next offender.

That last point may be more important than the name on the courthouse.

People are not principally deterred by the number of anti corruption agencies or courts a country possesses. They are deterred by the probability that wrongdoing will be discovered, prosecuted and punished.

Certainty matters.

If a public officer believes there is a substantial chance that stolen money can purchase influence, frustrate investigation, finance endless litigation or eventually disappear into a negotiated political settlement, another court building will not frighten him.

But if he knows that suspicious transactions will be detected, investigators will follow the money, prosecutors will present competent evidence, trials will proceed without needless delay and punishment will follow conviction, behaviour begins to change.

That is deterrence.

There is therefore a case for considering the CCT proposal seriously. Specialisation can improve expertise. Dedicated judges can reduce competing caseloads. Strict case management can prevent unnecessary delay.

But Nigeria should resist the temptation to believe that institutional redesign is itself reform.

The National Assembly must interrogate the proposal carefully. What jurisdiction will the new court possess? How will it relate to existing Federal and State High Courts? What constitutional amendments may be required? How will its judges be appointed? What safeguards will protect their independence? How will appeals work? And, crucially, what prevents the same culture of delay migrating into the new institution?

These questions are not arguments against reform. They are the conditions for making reform meaningful.

Nigeria’s anti corruption struggle has produced enough agencies, slogans, arrests, arraignments and televised declarations of war against corruption.

What it desperately needs is consequence.

If a National Anti Corruption Court can help deliver competent, independent and timely justice, then it deserves serious consideration.

But if we simply change the signboard, appoint 37 judges, create seven divisions and reproduce the weaknesses already haunting our justice system, corruption will adapt quickly. It always has.

The real measure of this proposal will therefore not be how quickly Nigeria creates another court. It will be whether those who steal from Nigeria finally begin to believe that the law will catch them.

Until then, we may have another court. But will corruption be afraid?

Lemmy Ughegbe, Ph.D, FIMC, CMC

Email: lemmyughegbeofficial@gmail.com
WhatsApp ONLY: +2348069716645

Abubakar Kabir 

A child rights organisation funded by the Malala Fund is seeking stronger backing from the Bauchi State Government to return adolescent girls who dropped out of school due to marriage back to classrooms.

The Women Child Youth Health and Education Initiative, WCY, made the appeal during an advocacy visit to the Ministry of Women and Child Development in Bauchi.

WCY Senior Programme Officer, Kamal Ali Bello, said the group is focused on enrollment, retention and completion for out-of-school children, with special attention to girls who left school early.

“The organisation is poised to ensure the return, retention and completion of adolescent girls who dropped out as a result of marriage or any other reason,” Bello said.

He also asked the ministry to set up the implementation and monitoring committee provided for in the state’s Child Protection Law to help track progress.

Permanent Secretary of the ministry, Hajiya Talatu Musa Gar, reiterated the government’s commitment to the health and welfare of women and children. She assured that the ministry will partner with any organisation willing to improve their welfare.

The ministry said it is ready to work with WCY and other partners to reduce Bauchi’s out-of-school numbers.

Tella Onah 

Former Director General of the Voice of Nigeria, (VoN), Dr Osita Okechukwu has advised President Bola Ahmed Tinubu ahead of the 2027 general election to allow strategic alliance of the Federal Capital Territory, (FCT), Minister, Nyesom Wike to stand.

Responding to moves by some All Progressives Congress, (APC), state governors to alienate President Tinubu, from his political ally, Wike, Okechukwu said his appeal was based on the political significance and strategic value of Wike’s alliance, which, he noted, contributed to President Tinubu’s victory in the 2023 presidential election and could again add considerable value in the 2027 contest.

According to him, the political realignment around Wike has already weakened the influence of former Vice President Atiku Abubakar nationwide saying; “in addition is  the fact that the PDP presidential candidate is truly a ‘Placeholder,’ posing no danger.

Speaking with selected journalists in Abuja on Sunday, Okechukwu argued that, from his political analysis, Wike could ultimately deliver more votes to President Tinubu than some of the APC governors who are currently seeking to distance themselves from him.

He cautioned that some of the governors who are now raising alarm about Wike’s relationship with the President should first examine their own conduct during the APC’s gubernatorial and legislative primaries.

“Some of those who are crying wolf today should remember that the electorate has not forgotten how our great party’s gubernatorial and legislative primaries were conducted in their respective states.

“Where primaries were manipulated, the consequences may eventually come back to haunt the perpetrators,” he stated.

Okechukwu said he was particularly encouraged by the fact that there would be three clear weeks between the presidential election scheduled for January 16, 2027, and the gubernatorial election scheduled for February 6, 2027.

He described the interval as an opportunity for Nigerian voters to assess the performance of both the federal government and the state governments, especially against the backdrop of the increased financial allocations accruing to the states.

“My happiness is that there is a gap of three good weeks between the January 16, 2027 presidential election and the February 6, 2027 gubernatorial election.

“This gives the Nigerian electorate an opportunity to assess who has delivered commensurate dividends of democracy from the increased resources available to the states.”

Okechukwu added that the 2027 elections could therefore serve as a referendum on performance, distinguishing political leaders who have translated increased public resources into tangible improvements in the lives of their citizens from those who have not.