EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 6 OF 2018 PRESERVATION OF ASSETS CONNECTED WITH SERIOUS CORRUPTION AND OTHER RELATED OFFENSES

The Buhari administration have issued an executive order No. 6 titled Preservation of Assets Connected with Serious Corruption and other Related Offenses” In this order, the President is  giving the prosecuting authorities the power to seize properties or assets. The Executive Order is not to forfeit people’s properties but rather temporarily deny access to the suspects. This can be used to corrupt or interfere with the investigative and judicial processes.

The President stated that  “It is in consequence of this that I have decided to issue the Executive Order No. 6 of 2018 to inter alia: restrict dealings in suspicious assets subject to investigation or inquiry bordering on corruption in order to preserve such assets from dissipation, and to deprive alleged criminals of the proceeds of their illicit activities, which can otherwise be employed to allure, pervert and/or intimidate the investigative and judicial processes or for acts of terrorism, financing of terrorism, kidnapping, sponsorship of ethnic or religious violence, economic sabotage and cases of economic and financial crimes, including acts contributing to the economic adversity of the Federal Republic of Nigeria  and against the overall interest of justice and the welfare of the Nigerian State.”

Section. 3 (i) of the Order states that any Person who alleges that his rights have been violated, are being or are likely to be contravened by any of the provision of this Executive Order may apply to a competent Court in his jurisdiction for redress,”

However, the President Muhammadu Buhari’s proclamation of Executive Order No. 6 of 2018 on the “Preservation of Assets Connected with Serious Corruption and other Related Offenses” has generated serious concerns among different stakeholders.

Under the constitutional democracy in practice in Nigeria, as clearly provided for in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria of 1999 as amended, sections 4, 5 and 6 have clearly demarcated the constitutional powers of each arm of government with section 4 ceding the power of lawmaking in to the National Assembly and state Assemblies.

The experts argue that the Executive Order was a total duplication of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC Act which contains several provisions regarding temporary or permanent forfeiture and how the forfeited assets have to be administered transparently, adding that the power to grant such temporary or permanent forfeiture belongs to the Courts of competent jurisdiction because that is the forum for the interpretation of the laws.

Some prominent activists and lawyers have spoken against the executive order among them is Olisa Agbokoba who said that   “He reviewed the executive order and his first comment is that the Order was unnecessary as it simply repeats laws, rules and regulations relating to corruption. There is really nothing new and all that is required is to implement existing laws rather than make executive orders’. This is a view expressed by several others.

The implementation of the order, the legal interpretation and how the order affects the fight against corruption will be interesting.

ISDFoundation Secretariat.