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 develops into criminal conduct.
The ICPC Chairman, Dr Musa Adamu Aliyu, SAN, made the call on Tuesday at the Fourth International Diplomatic Dialogue organised by the Anti-Corruption Academy of Nigeria (ACAN), the research and training arm of the Commission, at its 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, 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 continually explore practical approaches that strengthen institutions, promote transparency and accountability, and rebuild public trust.
“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 dialogue into practical measures capable of producing stronger institutions and better anti-corruption outcomes.
“The knowledge and experience shared today should not end within the walls of this auditorium. Rather, they should inspire practical actions that strengthen our institutions, enhance public trust, and contribute to national and continental development,” Aliyu added.
Presenting the Russian experience, Ivannikov said an effective anti-corruption system must go beyond punishing offences after they occur to addressing the conditions that make corruption possible.
He identified income and asset declarations by designated categories of public officials, expenditure monitoring and conflict-of-interest prevention as key preventive tools used in Russia.
According to him, financial declarations allow authorities to compare the legitimate income of public officials with their actual financial and property holdings, helping to identify potential discrepancies and corruption risks.
Ivannikov also highlighted anti-corruption reviews of legislation, which he said were designed to identify provisions that could create opportunities for corrupt practices, including excessive official powers, unjustified discretion and unclear administrative procedures.
On public procurement, the Russian diplomat said his country had increasingly deployed digital platforms and risk-based monitoring to improve transparency in procurement and contract administration.
He, however, stressed that digitalisation alone could not eliminate corruption without effective oversight, access to information and accountability for violations.
Ivannikov further identified codes of ethics, conflict-of-interest procedures, designated anti-corruption compliance officers and regular corruption-risk assessments as important components of a preventive framework.
He also outlined the enforcement side of Russia’s anti-corruption system, including investigation of corruption-related offences, tracing and freezing illicit assets, prosecution and adjudication of cases by the courts.
Earlier, the Provost of ACAN, Professor Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim, provided an overview of Russia’s anti-corruption framework, highlighting the evolution of its legal and institutional mechanisms for preventing, detecting and addressing corruption.
Ibrahim identified key contemporary anti-corruption laws in Russia 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 form part of the legal framework guiding the country’s anti-corruption institutions.
The ACAN provost also highlighted institutions involved in Russia’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 noted the role of the Prosecutor General’s Office, explaining 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, in line with Article 36 of the United Nations Convention against Corruption.
Ibrahim also highlighted 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 the fight against corruption.
