Tunde Oyesina, in this article, highlights the benefits of the Asset Forfeiture Bill, now in limbo at the National Assembly and calls on the legislators to pass the bill into law in order to reduce the level of corruption in the country.

Recently the chairman of the Economic and Financial Crime Commission, (EFCC) Mrs. Farida Waziri proposed the Asset Forfeiture Bill to the National Assembly saying that its passage would go a long way to reduce the level of corruption in the nation.

Although much has not been heard of the bill of late, this indicates that the legislature is not giving it a thought let alone debating it on the floor of the house.

An objective analysis of the term and its purpose would go a long way to show that the bill if passed into law will no doubt be another tool to reduce the level of corruption in our country.

The term “asset forfeiture” may be new in the Nigerian parlance but it is not in the advanced or developed countries as many of such countries have already passed the bill into law.

Asset forfeiture is a term used to describe the confistication of by the state, which are either the proceeds of crime or the instrumentalities of crime, and more recently, terrorism.
Instrumentalities of crime are properties that were used to facilitate crime, for example cars used to transport illegal narcotics.

The terminology as used in different jurisdictions varies. Some jurisdictions use the term “confistication” instead of forfeiture, the only difference here is in the nomenclature, the act is the same.

In recent years there has been a growing trend for countries to introduce civil forfeiture. Such countries are the USA, Australia, the UK, Ireland, Italy, South Africa, various Canadian provinces and Antigua.

The proponent of the term in above countries suggests that it is a necessary tool to prevent trafficking but such claims could not be supported by facts. For instance, statistics released by the South African police services showed that when 54 Balfour street was seized for forfeiture in 2001 on allegations relating to drugs that the drug crime of which Simon Prophet was accused increased in that country by a staggering 75 per cent within four years. This was reflected in the figures presented to the Constitutional Court in 2006 by the Asset Forfeiture Unit.

Former United States President, George Bush said that” Asset forfeiture Laws allow the government to take the ill-gotten gains of drug kingpins and use them to put more cops on the streets”.

Although, the hard facts are there to show that, in western countries, all efforts {including forfeiture and increased police budgets} to eradicate illegal drugs have failed.

The trend towards civil forfeiture has in part been prompted by the nature of organised crime. Organised crime heads use their resources to keep themselves distant from the crimes that they control and to mask the criminal origins of their assets. For this reason it has become extremely difficult to carry out successful criminal investigations leading to the prosecution and conviction of such individuals.

Coming down to Nigeria, the peak of corruption is not in drug trafficking as experienced in other advanced countries but ours is the diversion of public fund into a personal account most especially into foreign account, thereby making the public to suffer unjustly.

This is mostly done by public servants holding public office at one time or other. The list of such cases being prosecuted at the moment by EFCC and ICPC are endless.

Two types of forfeiture cases have been identified namely, criminal and civil. In most cases all that could lead to forfeiture in Nigeria today are civil.

In civil forfeiture case, the government is expected to sue the item of property that was alleged to have been gotten illegally and not the person, the owner is effectively a third party claimant.

In the US, before the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act was enacted in 2000, the government only had to establish probable cause that the property was subject to forfeiture, the owner had to prove on a preponderance of evidence that it was not.

But the new law holds the government to the preponderance of evidence standard and shifts the burden of proof to the Federal Government instead of the property owner. The property owner still need not be found guilty of any crime.

In contrast, criminal forfeiture is usually carried out in a sentence following a conviction and is a punitive act against the offender.

The Federal Government would be expected to set up a separate body that would be responsible for managing and disposing of properties seized and forfeited.

The reason for this is to maximize the net return from property seized by selling at auctions and to the private sector and then using the property and proceeds for law enforcement purposes.

A cross section of legal practitioners who reacted on this were of the opinion that the passage of the bill would go a long way to reduce the level of corruption if the law is strictly implemented when finally passed into law.

They added that the problem of the country is not lack of written laws; rather it is lack of implementation on the part of the government, and this they said was a result of some level of preferential treatment which some people enjoyed as long as they are good terms with the government of the day.

Another group of people who spoke under the condition of anonymity opined that the passage of the bill would be a hard nut to crack citing the example of the FOI bill that is dragging its feet on the floor of the National Assembly.

The passage of the bill by the National Assembly was described as preparing  gallows for one self and it is very rare for one to see a man that knows the road he would eventually follow and still go ahead to set a trap.

It was hence submitted that the first step in bringing sanity into the nation is to effectively implement the existing laws by making it to be supreme over every individual not minding the status or influence as the case may be.

The society is another factor that could be responsible for the passage of the bill. To a great extent it seems the society is in full support of embezzling public funds by their kinsmen that are in power as long as they could give them peanuts. A visit to the court when cases of mismanagement of public funds are being tried would paint a better scenario.

It has become a common practice to see supporters of accused persons who were being charged of mismanagement of public fund in court jubilating when their alleged leader or illustrious son as the case may be is granted bail or the case is adjourn till a later date.

Many a time, if such people are convicted and sentenced, on their return a big party is thrown to welcome them back into the society as if they have just added another color to their cap. In the light of this an average Nigerian sees corruption as celebrated act.

Reducing corruption should be seen as the task of every patriotic Nigerian and hence should be tackled with a sincere motive, nobody irrespective of the position or the status should above the law, strict punitive measure should be meted out to anyone found guilty of corruption.

If passing of the bill into law would be part of the tools to reduce the level of corruption in our society, the National Assembly should please for the sake posterity passed it into law so that the coming generation would bless the legislators.

Nigeria belongs to all of us and as a good Nigerian irrespective of tribe, age, gender and status we should be strive to rid off the nation from the monster called corruption.