Nigeria's House seeks audit of assets recovered since 1999

Nigeria's House of Representatives has initiated a call for a thorough audit of all assets seized, forfeited, recovered, managed, disposed of, or repatriated by government bodies since the nation embraced democratic rule in 1999. This move stems from mounting concerns regarding the transparency and accountability surrounding the management of these recovered public assets.

The resolution, adopted following a motion by Ibe Osonwa, highlights the absence of a centralized asset register and weak oversight mechanisms as critical gaps. Osonwa invoked Sections 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution, which empower the National Assembly to investigate public institutions and scrutinize the management of public funds and assets. The recent Proceeds of Crime Act of 2022 provides a framework, but its implementation is under scrutiny.

“

There is presently no centralised and publicly accessible National Asset Recovery and Management Register capable of providing comprehensive information on the status, value, location, management, disposal, utilisation and proceeds of recovered assets across the Federation.

Lawmakers expressed alarm over recurring allegations of inadequate record-keeping, poor asset valuation practices, weak chain-of-custody procedures, asset deterioration, non-remittance of proceeds, conflicts of interest, and potential leakages in asset management and disposal. Osonwa noted that despite the immense value of recovered assets, estimated to be worth trillions of naira, Nigeria lacks a comprehensive, publicly accessible national register to track their status and utilization.

The House is particularly concerned about the lack of a centralized database that could provide complete information on the status, value, location, management, disposal, and proceeds of recovered assets across the federation. This deficiency, coupled with ongoing allegations, fuels the demand for a comprehensive audit to ensure accountability and prevent further mismanagement.

“

Recurring allegations of inadequate record-keeping, poor valuation practices, weak chain-of-custody procedures, asset deterioration, non-remittance of proceeds, conflicts of interest and possible leakages in the management and disposal of recovered assets.