Why Nigeria Presidents Should Not Appoint Anti-Corruption Agencies Bosses

The role of the President of Nigeria in appointing heads of anti-corruption agencies may depend on the specific legal and constitutional provisions of the country.

The President of Nigeria has the power to appoint heads of anti-corruption agencies, such as the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC).

These appointments usually require Senate confirmation.

Speaking with a lawyer on the issue he said, “The various establishment Acts of the anti corruption agencies prescribe the manner of appointment of their head.

“Most times, it provides for the appointment of the chairman and other principal members of the establishment by the presidenct.

“The EFCC Act (2022) provides in section 2 sub section 3 that the president appoints the chairman of efcc and the secretary subject to the confirmation of the senate.”

He further stated, “introduction of the senate in this regards is for checks and balances in order to vet the appointment of the president. Same goes for ICPC”

Questions around this process can arise due to concerns about potential conflicts of interest, politicization, or bias.

Critics might argue that having the President appoint these officials could undermine the independence of these agencies.

They may express worry that these appointees may be more loyal to the President than to their duty of fighting corruption, or that they might use their position to target political opponents.

There are a few mechanisms that can be put in place to mitigate these risks. One is to have a neutral body, such as a judicial or civil service commission, involved in the selection process.

Another is to have clear, transparent criteria and processes for these appointments.

A third is to have robust checks and balances, such as oversight by the legislature or the courts, to prevent abuses of power.

Also, implementing strong provisions for transparency, accountability, and participation can help.

These might include rules to prevent conflicts of interest, enforce ethical standards, provide for public participation in decision-making, and ensure access to information. Regular audits, strong internal controls, and whistleblower protections can also be useful.

But in the end, it’s important to remember that the effectiveness of anti-corruption agencies depends not only on their leadership but also on their resources, mandate, independence, and the broader political, legal, and cultural context in which they operate.

A committed, independent, and adequately resourced agency can make a difference, regardless of how its leaders are chosen.

Popular Nigerian columnist, Farooq Kperogi, in an interview with Naija News shared his view on a President appointing heads of corruption agencies.

Speaking on the right of the President to appoint heads of such agencies, Kperogi said, “In light of the weakness of our institutions and the tendency for public appointees to feel indebted to presidents who appoint them, sometimes at the expense of the duties their jobs require of them, I don’t think the heads of anti-corruption agencies and even of the Independent National Electoral Commission should be solely appointed by the president. There will always be a conflict of interest.

“What I suggest is for Nigeria to adopt and adapt the model in South Africa. There, sensitive positions that require political non-partisanship to be effective are first advertised in public spaces.

“A self-governing body made up of independent, reputationally solid academics, civil society activists, journalists, public-interest lawyers, etc. under the headship of the Chief Justice should be constituted.

“We can call it the National Appointments Commission—or any other suitable name. This body will be charged with the responsibility to winnow finalists from the pool of qualified applicants.

“It will then recommend two names to security and intelligence agencies for security and intelligence evaluation. If the candidates pass security vetting, their names will be sent to the president for onward submission to the National Assembly for confirmation hearing.

“The president should have no power to sack appointees that get their positions through this process. That power should reside with two-third majority of both chambers of the National Assembly.”