Waiziri Adio, former Executive Secretary of the Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI), has asked the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Limited (NNPCL) to be transparent in its dealing.

He said this while reacting to the national oil company’s response to reports that President Bola Tinubu had approved payment for subsidy.

Tinubu had directed NNPC to utilise the 2023 final dividends due the federation to pay for subsidy.

But denying the report on subsidy, Umar Ajiya, Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of the NNPCL, said the oil firm is only bearing what he called the “shortfall” and not subsidy.

In a series of tweets on Tuesday, Adio, who is the Executive Director of Agora Policy think-tanka, wondered why NNPC was playing with words.

“NNPCL’s waffling on petrol subsidy is so disingenuous. Oh, it is not subsidy, but a shortfall/PMS fx differential. Same difference. No subsidy was paid to any marketer. Has anyone said NNPCL paid subsidy to marketers and is it even within their remit to pay subsidy to marketers?”

“Former PPPRA was charged with approving subsidy for marketers and NNPC. Ministry of Finance was paying marketers after verification of claims. Only difference with NNPC was that it deducted its subsidy and other claims from money for crude given to it for domestic use (DCA).

“It is not NNPCL’s responsibility, by practice or by law, to pay subsidy to marketers. That answer to a question not asked is at best a hollow attempt at deflection.

“Saying there is no subsidy because selling PMS below landing cost is a transaction between the company and the Federation (repaid or netted off) is a lame play with words that take everyone for a moron. NNPCL can use this free advice: when in a hole, stop digging,” he tweeted.

[DailyTrust]

The Nigeria Labour Congress, NLC, President, Joe Ajaero, has fixed a date to honour the invitation from the Nigeria Police Force.

Ajaero fixed Wednesday, August 29 to honour the invitation.

He communicated the date to the Inspector General of Police via a letter from his lawyers, Falana and Falana Chambers.

The NLC President was summoned by the Police over alleged criminal conspiracy, terrorism financing, treasonable felony, subversion and cybercrime.

Ajaero, in the letter by his lawyers, also demanded details of the allegations levelled against him by the Police.

Parts of the letter signed by Samuel Ogala, read: “Therefore, Ajaero is prepared for your interview on Wednesday, August 29, 2024.

“Furthermore, in accordance with the provisions of Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as altered, Ajaero requests for the details and nature of the allegations of criminal conspiracy, terrorism financing, treasonable felony, subversion and cybercrime levelled against him.

“While awaiting your response to this letter, please accept the assurance of our highest esteem.”

[DailyPost]

The Lagos State Taskforce has launched a major operation along the Mile 2 Oke section of the Oshodi-Apapa Expressway, leading to the seizure of over 2,000 litres of petroleum products.

The operation is part of a broader effort to tackle environmental and security issues in the area.

The chairman of the Lagos State Taskforce, CSP Adetayo Akerele, spearheaded the raid under the directive of the state government and Lagos Commissioner of Police, CP Adegoke Fayoade.

The initiative aligns with the THEMES PLUS agenda, which prioritizes the preservation of the environment and the protection of lives and property across the state.

The Mile 2 Oke area has recently become notorious for severe traffic congestion, fueled by the proliferation of illegal roadside vendors and shanties.

The activities have not only disrupted traffic flow but have also contributed to an alarming increase in traffic-related robberies and other criminal activities, endangering both motorists and commuters.

CSP Akerele highlighted the particularly dangerous practice of illegal petroleum sales along the roadside, which poses significant fire hazards.

“Among the most pressing issues addressed was the illegal sale of petrol and diesel by the roadside, where over 2,000 litres of petroleum products were seized. This is a highly dangerous practice that poses a significant risk of fire hazards and explosions. We will ensure that such activities that endanger the lives of these illegal merchants and other road users are brought to a complete halt,” he stated.

The Taskforce dismantled several illegal structures and cleared the area of vendors as part of the operation.

Four suspects were arrested, and numerous items were confiscated during the raid.

The Chairman assured that the arrested individuals would be charged to court, and the confiscated items would be forfeited to the state government through legal processes.

CSP Akerele reaffirmed the Taskforce’s commitment to maintaining safety and order across Lagos State.

“We will continue to monitor the area to prevent the resurgence of illegal activities and to ensure that the roads remain clear for safe and smooth transportation,” he added.

[TheNation]

A Nigerian man, identified as Yomi Olayeye has been arrested and charged with conspiracy, wire fraud, and identity theft for his alleged role in a $10 million pandemic unemployment assistance fraud scheme in the United States.

The United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts under the Department of Justice revealed this in a statement posted on its website on Monday.

The statement read, “A Nigerian man was arrested on Aug. 13, 2024 upon arriving at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City on charges that he and other conspired to fraudulently obtain at least $10 million in COVID-19 unemployment benefits.

“Yomi Jones Olayeye, a/k/a “Sabbie,” 40, of Lagos, Nigeria, is charged with one count of wire fraud conspiracy, one count of wire fraud, and one count of aggravated identity theft. He made an initial appearance in the Eastern District of New York on Aug. 14, 2024 and will appear in federal court in Boston tomorrow. 

“According to the charging document, between March and July 2020, Olayeye and others defrauded three pandemic assistance programs administrated by the Massachusetts Department of Unemployment Assistance and other states’ unemployment insurance agencies: traditional unemployment insurance (UI), Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) and Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC).”

Olayeye and his co-conspirators were alleged to have used stolen personal information to apply for unemployment benefits in multiple states, including Massachusetts, Hawaii, and Indiana.

The statement added, “In total, Olayeye and his co-conspirators allegedly applied for at least $10 million in fraudulent UI, PUA and FPUC from Massachusetts, Hawaii, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Montana, Maine, Ohio and Washington and received more than $1.5 million in assistance to which they were not entitled.

“Specifically, Olayeye and his co-conspirators allegedly used personally identifiable information (PII) they purchased over criminal internet forums to apply for UI, PUA and FPUC – falsely representing themselves to be eligible state residents affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Olayeye and his co-conspirators allegedly used the same fraudulently obtained PII to open U.S. bank and prepaid debit card accounts to receive the assistance payments. It is also alleged that Olayeye and his co-conspirators recruited U.S.-based account holders to receive and transfer the fraud proceeds via cash transfer applications.”

They were also alleged to have used the benefits to purchase Bitcoin and concealed their connection to Nigeria by using US-based IP addresses.

“Olayeye and his co-conspirators then allegedly used the fraudulent proceeds to purchase Bitcoin via online marketplaces.

“It is further alleged that Olayeye and his co-conspirators concealed the conspiracy’s connection to Nigeria by leasing Internet Protocol addresses assigned to computers located in the United States for use in the fraudulent transactions,” the statement read.

The United States Department of Justice further explained that if convicted, Olayeye faces up to 20 years in prison, three years of supervised release, a fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss, forfeiture, and restitution.

The statement added,”The charges of wire fraud and wire fraud conspiracy provide for a sentence of up to 20 years in prison, three years of supervised release, a fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss, fforfeiture,and restitution.

“The charge of aggravated identity theft calls for a mandatory minimum sentence of two years in prison to be added to any sentence imposed on the wire fraud charge.

“Sentences are imposed by a federal district court judge based upon the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and statutes which govern the determination of a sentence in a criminal case.”

The Attorney General was reported to have established the COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force on May 17, 2021 to marshal the resources of the Department of Justice in partnership with agencies across the government to enhance efforts to combat and prevent pandemic-related fraud

[Punch]

THE #EndBadGovernance protest, which started on August 1, 2024 and formally ended on August 20, 2024 has continued to raise discussions across the country and beyond, especially within civil society groups. More than 1,400 people who took part in the protest have reportedly been arrested and detained by security agencies with indications that the government is still trying to hunt-down suspected sponsors of the protest.

One of the important lessons from the protest is that the storm clouds seem to be really gathering towards a totalitarian state – a system characterised by a strong central rule that attempts to control and direct all aspects of individual life through coercion and repression. 

In political science, totalitarianism is the extreme form of authoritarianism, wherein all power is held by a dictatorial nanny state that promotes group-think through blackmail and propaganda. Group-think, according to the American social psychologist Irving Janis who coined the term, is “the mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence-seeking becomes so dominant in a cohesive in-group that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action.”  In group-think, loyalty to the group requires individuals to avoid raising controversial or non-conforming issues and ideas or even alternative solutions.

The first lethal blow to liberal democracy by totalitarians is the ‘chilling of speech’.  This refers to a situation where individuals or groups refrain from exercising their constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech (both verbal and symbolic, such as organising peaceful protests) for fear of running afoul of a law or regulation. The ‘chilling of free speech’ is a form of ‘prior restraint’ (a form of censorship that allows the government to review the content of printed materials to decide whether such should be published or not). When free speech is successfully stifled, even an honest opinion could be construed as an incitement by the totalitarian state which then uses it as a pretext to come after purveyors of the speech it does not like. As the American jurist Wendell Holmes famously put it in Gitlow v New York (1925): “Every idea is an incitement… The only difference between the expression of an opinion and an incitement in the narrower sense is the speaker’s enthusiasm for the results”.

Totalitarians come in different guises, usually rationalising their desire to chill free speech by hiding under higher values. A good example is the ‘end of politics’ sycophants in the Tinubu government. This is an overzealous but self-serving group which, in the wake of the Supreme Court affirmation of Bola Ahmed Tinubu as the President after the controversial 2023 presidential election, began an aggressive quest to muzzle free speech by those they consider as opposition elements. 

They did so (and still do) using various mantras such as “the time for politicking is over, it is now the time for governance” or “the President should be allowed to concentrate on governance”, the “President should not be distracted”, “those who lost elections should wait until 2027”, etc, etc. 

The irony is that the advocates of “the end of politics” are themselves being political. They are either trying to stifle the voices of opposition or blackmail critics of the government, both of which are needed in a democracy to keep the government on its toes for optimal performance. Ironically, some members of this in-group flaunt their ‘democratic credentials’ by constantly reminding us of their roles in the struggle for the revalidation of MKO Abiola’s mandate.  The truth is that not all who partook in the noble struggle to re-validate MKO Abiola’s mandate were democrats. Some were drawn into the struggle by different motives, including defence of ethnic pride.

Just like the DSS infamously went after people who expressed an honest opinion of supporting an interim government after the 2023 elections and sought to blackmail the public into believing that such expressions of honest opinion amounted to intentions to commit treason, the ‘end of politics’ zealots, (many of who are linked to the government), are going overdrive to criminalise protest. 

I fail to see any crime not just in peaceful protests but also in the ‘sponsorship’ of such protests – which is actually a way of encouraging citizens to become active participants in the political process. And talking of sponsorship, are various state agencies such as the National Orientation Agency and others that provide myriad forms of political enlightenment campaigns not also engaging in ‘sponsorship’ when they devise schemes for citizens to identify more with the government of the day, including funding pro-government or counter protests? The only difference is that while one group is presumably ‘sponsored’ to voice its displeasure with the government (which is constitutionally allowed), another group is ‘sponsored’ to identify with the government of the day. 

Of course supporting citizens to become active participants in the political process through ‘sponsoring’ peaceful protest must be distinguished from sponsoring an insurrection or encouraging violent protest or vandalising   people’s property, which is condemnable. 

In the run-up to the protest, Bayo Onanuga, who had in the aftermath of the 2023 presidential election in Lagos proclaimed himself a Yoruba irredentist and weaponised ethnicity, accused Peter Obi of being the secret sponsor of the #EndBadGovernance protest. Others linked to the government have also variously accused Atiku Abubakar, the North, some senior military officers from the North, the Igbos and foreign interest of being the sponsors of the protest. There was also a threat to start a campaign for Igbo-Must-Go from August 20 2024 to force the Igbos to vacate Lagos and all the states in the South-West (so far no arrest has been made about the sponsors of the genocidal campaign).  

Recently, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tajudeen Abbas, introduced a so-called Counter Subversive Bill 24 (now withdrawn), which proposed harsh penalties for Nigerians who refuse to recite the national anthem, destroy national symbols, or deface places of worship or who organise “an unlawful procession”. I see all these as gangster methods of chilling speech through the spreading of fear across the camps of opposition forces. 

Once free speech is successfully chilled, our current liberal democracy, as imperfect as it is, would be further corrupted into George Orwell’s dystopian account of a totalitarian state in his book, ‘Nineteen-Eighty-Four’. Since the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, it is important that anti-democratic forces, in whatever guises they come, are not allowed to gain an upper hand. 

It is germane to note that the very First Amendment to the American Constitution in 1791 was to protect freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. This is because free speech, and the marketplace of ideas which it creates, is the foundational structure of democracy. Without it, democracy dies.

To be concluded

Nations like Sudan, Zimbabwe, and Nigeria are among the top 5 countries in Africa that have lost the most people to emigration

Across Africa, millions of people are leaving their home countries due to a mix of factors such as economic hardship, political instability, conflict, and a lack of opportunities. The continent has seen a significant outflow of its population, with some countries experiencing particularly high rates of emigration.

Nations like Sudan, Zimbabwe, and Nigeria are among the top 5 African countries that have lost the most people to emigration, per ranking via UN’s World Population Prospects 2024. 

5 countries in Africa with most emigration

1. Sudan

Sudan ranks first among African nations experiencing the highest levels of emigration, with approximately 1.35 million citizens having left the country. This places Sudan in a growing crisis as political instability, economic hardship, and conflict continue to drive people out in search of better living conditions abroad.

Recent statistics highlight the ongoing trend of migration, with many Sudanese seeking refuge in neighboring countries, Europe, and beyond. The loss of this large portion of its population not only strains families but also contributes to a significant brain drain, as skilled workers leave the country. Sudan’s position in this ranking underscores the broader migration challenges facing the African continent.

2. Uganda

Uganda ranks second in African countries experiencing significant emigration, with over 126,000 Ugandans leaving the country in recent years. This wave of migration is attributed to various factors, including economic challenges, political instability, and limited opportunities for growth within the nation.

Many Ugandans have sought refuge and better prospects in countries across Europe, the Middle East, and North America. The continued emigration presents concerns over the loss of talent and labor, which has led to calls for more robust policies aimed at retaining skilled professionals and fostering better economic conditions at home.

3. Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe ranks third among African countries most affected by emigration, with an estimated 97,000 citizens having left the country in recent years. The primary drivers behind this exodus are ongoing economic difficulties, high unemployment rates, and political instability.

Many Zimbabweans are migrating to neighbouring countries like South Africa, as well as further afield to Europe, the UK, and North America, in search of better opportunities. The large-scale emigration is contributing to a significant brain drain, impacting critical sectors such as healthcare and education.

4. Nigeria

Nigeria ranks fourth among African countries experiencing a high rate of emigration, with an estimated 58,000 Nigerians leaving the country in recent years. The trend is driven by a combination of economic challenges, security concerns, and a desire for better educational and employment opportunities abroad.

A significant portion of Nigerian emigrants are heading to Europe, North America, and the Middle East, seeking stable environments and improved living conditions. The outflow has raised concerns over a “brain drain,” particularly in sectors like healthcare and technology, where skilled professionals are increasingly leaving the country.

5. Mali

Mali ranks fifth among African countries experiencing the most significant levels of emigration, with approximately 40,000 Malians having left the country in recent years. This migration is largely driven by persistent insecurity, economic instability, and limited opportunities for advancement.

A considerable number of Malians have migrated to Europe and neighboring West African countries, often risking dangerous journeys in search of better livelihoods. The outflow of people has raised concerns over the loss of talent and labor, particularly among the youth, who are seeking opportunities that are scarce at home.

Vanguard News

At the beginning of March 2020, Nigeria’s Supreme Court  dismissed an application for the review of its seven-week old decision to judicially install Hope Uzodinma as the Governor of Imo State, citing as its main reason the need to preserve the authority and finality of decisions of the apex court. The court issued what appeared to be a principled defence of the finality of its judgments, declaring somewhat ostentatiously that once it had issued a decision, “it shall remain forever.”

Olukayode Ariwoola, who delivered the judgment of the majority in the review was also a member of the original panel which decided in January 2020 that Mr. Uzodinma had won the election despite being the candidate who came fourth in the tally of votes scored among the contestants on the ballot. Few could recall at the time that Olukayode Ariwoola had previous experience in this kind of improbable judicial alchemy.

Ahead of the 2007 general elections, the then ruling Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) chose Joy Emordi, a lawyer, to fly its flag in the contest to represent Anambra North in the Senate. In the contest for the party ticket, she had defeated Ubanese Alphonsus Igbeke, who had been installed by judicial order after the 2003 elections as the member representing Anambra East/Anambra West in the House of Representatives. After losing the senatorial ticket to Ms. Emordi, Ubanese Igbeke relocated his party loyalty to the All Nigeria Peoples’ Party (ANPP)

Election day was 28 April 2007 and voting occurred took place in the seven LGAs of Anambra North to determine the person to represent the constituency in the Senate. At the end of the contest, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) returned Joy Emordi as the winner. Five of the losing candidates, including Ubanese Igbeke, lodged petitions to challenge the outcome before the Election Petition Tribunal in Awka, the capital of Anambra State.

On 14 June 2008, the tribunal dismissed the petitions and upheld the return of Senator Emordi. Eight months later, on 10 February 2009, a Court of Appeal panel comprising Victor Omage, Ladan Tsamiya, and Olukayode Ariwoola as Justices of Appeal dismissed the appeal by one of the candidates, Jessie Balonwu, against the decision of the first instance tribunal, holding in particular that there were elections in the seven Local Government Areas (LGAs) of the constituency.

This was significant because the crux of the appeal by Ubanese Igbeke in his own appeal was that there were no elections in two of the seven LGAs in the constituency, specifically in Anyamelum and Onitsha South, respectively. At the same time, Igbeke also asked the Court of Appeal to find that Joy Emordi had failed to score the highest number of lawful votes in the election and to, instead declare that he had in fact scored the highest number of lawful votes in the election and return him as the winner.

One year later, on 25 March 2010, the Court of Appeal, this time comprising Amiru Sanusi, Ladan Tsamiya and Olukayode Ariwoola found in favour of Ubanese Igbeke on all issues and returned him as duly elected. To reach this decision, a panel of the Court of Appeal which included two of the three Justices who decided the earlier case, inexplicably changed their position on the pivotal issue of whether balloting in fact occurred in all the LGAs in the constituency but felt no need to explain how or why.

Having found in Igbeke’s favour on that point, the panel incredulously proceeded to award the election to him when the only logical order was a re-run in the LGAs where the court claimed that no balloting in fact occurred. The skills required to produce this outcome defied all laws of judicial calisthenics.

Senator Emordi lost in her effort to appeal against this to the Supreme Court and on 25 May 2010 – with a mere one year to spare out of a four-year parliamentary term – Ubanese Igbeke took the oath as Senator representing Anambra North.

Of the three Justices of Appeal who implausibly sent Ubanese Igbeke to the Senate, Ladan Tsamiya remained on the Court of Appeal where his career ended in ignominy in 2016 on allegations of corruption in another election dispute.

In the month of the fourth anniversary of the senatorial debut of Ubanese Igbeke secured through their judicial machination, Amiru Sanusi proceeded in May 2015 to the Supreme Court from where he retired in February 2020, the month after they installed Hope Uzodinma as Imo State Governor.

The year after Igbeke’s entry into the Senate, in November 2011, Goodluck Jonathan appointed Olukayode Ariwoola as a Justice of the Supreme Court. After more than one decade on the court, in June 2022, Ariwoola emerged as Chief Justice after leading an unprecedented mutiny against his predecessor in which 14 Justices accused then Chief Justice, Tanko Muhammad, of ignoring their wellbeing. He was officially born 22 August, 1954.

The tenure of Olukayode Ariwoola as Chief Justice of Nigeria began “amid ‘all-time low’ judicial trust.” It was not too much to hope that shoring up public trust in the judicial branch should have been a priority in these circumstances. Instead, he seemed to be on a mission to make up for lost opportunities in the material benefits of office. The result was a tenure which denuded public trust in the judiciary rather than rehabilitate it.

As CJN, Olukayode Ariwoola will be well remembered for the alacrity with which he redressed any previous neglect – real or imagined – of the welfare of his own family and his beloved village, Iseyin, in Oyo State. In two years in the position, he made his son a judge of the Federal High Court; his daughter-in-law a judge of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory; his brother auditor of the National Judicial Council  (NJC) chaired by himself as Chief Justice; and another reported member of his family a Justice of the Court of Appeal. It was done with a grubbiness that did not pretend to have any regard for the authority of the CJN or respect for the Judicial Code of Conduct, which explicitly prohibits such manifest nepotism with the warning that a judge “who takes advantage of the judicial office for personal gain or for gain by his or her relative or relation abuses power.”

Fittingly, Olukayode Ariwoola’s tenure as Chief Justice ends in a filigree of clannish patronage. In his last meeting as Chair of the NJC, he handed out judicial sinecures to two sisters; one to the High Court of Kwara State and another to the High Court of Ondo State. The month before, he had installed their brother as a judge of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory. Their dad was a judicial benefactor.

In 2020, the Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee (LPPC) then chaired by Olukayode’s Ariwoola’s predecessor sanctioned a lawyer who had applied for elevation to the rank of SAN by altering Supreme Court judgments to insert his name as counsel in cases in which he had not acted. 21 days to his departure as Chief Justice, Olukayode Ariwoola rushed through new elevations, making this same lawyer a SAN when he was better off being struck off the Roll entirely. When, in one of her first acts as Chief Justice, his successor inaugurates this kind of specimen into the Inner Bar, it will set the seal on unquestionably the most baleful judicial legacy in contemporary Nigeria.

Addressing the opening of the legal year before a special session of the Supreme Court – the last to be presided over by Olukayode Ariwoola as CJN – in November 2023, Ebun Sofunde, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) speaking on behalf of the Body of Senior Advocates of Nigeria (BOSAN), testified that judicial reputation “is at an all-time low… to a point where it may no longer be redeemable” and ended with the complaint that Supreme Court judgments under him had become “perfunctory.” These words easily sum up what will be remembered as the most lamentable tenure in the office of the Chief Justice of Nigeria since the appointment of the first indigenous CJN in 1958.

A lawyer and a teacher, Odinkalu can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Delivering a paper on the “Impact of the whistleblowing policy on public sector accountability and transparency” on Thursday July 11, 2024 at the Inter-agency Task Team (IATT) conference in Abuja, the executive chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Olanipekun Olukoyede, reopened the debate about the imperative of effective engagement of whistle-blowers in the battle against corruption. Restarting the conversation, perhaps unwittingly, he identified some of the perceived weaknesses of the whistle-blower policy, which should be addressed, including the need for adequate safeguards for whistle-blowers to shield them from persecution or punishment.

It was in a bid to expose and confront corruption that the Buhari administration adopted whistleblowing as a government policy in 2016. The policy has since become lukewarm as many would-be whistle-blowers withhold information for fear of their safety. Corruption must be tackled frontally for it has eaten deep into our nation’s fabric like cankerworm.

In fact, Olukoyede labels corruption as the next deadliest affliction of humanity after terrorism. Indeed, a measure of the magnitude of public sector corruption in Nigeria and its colossal disruptive effects on the economy emerged in a report released by the National Bureau of Statistics, which indicated that Nigerian public officials received N721 billion as bribes in 2023, amounting to about 0.35% of the country’s Gross Domestic Product.

When it was espoused in 2016, a whistle-blower who provides information about any financial mismanagement or gives clue about any stolen funds to the Ministry of Finance’s portal is rewarded or entitled to between 2.5% and 5% from the recovered funds by the federal government. Some important recoveries were made following whistleblowing. For instance, within the first two months of the policy, the federal government recovered over $178 million stolen from government’s coffers. According to Wikipedia, by June 5, 2017, the federal ministry of finance had received a total of 2,150 tips from the public and this grew to 5,000 by August of the same year.

The recovery that year, through a whistler-blower’s effort, of $43.5million, GBP27, 800 and N23.2million at No. 16 Osborne Road, Ikoyi in Lagos is particularly remarkable.To keep its part of the bargain, the federal ministry of finance, according to reports, paid the whistler-blower involved the sum of N421million, though the entire episode later became controversial.

Strengthening whistle-blowers to expose wrongdoings has become imperative if the anti-corruption fight must fully succeed. This is why civil society organisations and concerned individuals had been engaged in a number of advocacies since 2016 to ensure that people who blow whistle are properly protected.
“The starting point is to emplace a legal framework for whistleblowing including a Whistle-blower Protection Law,” the EFCC chairman surmised, while also calling for the streamlining of the channels for reporting and procedures for the determination and payment of incentives.

According to him, there should be “clear-cut guidelines on reporting channels, including determining agencies to receive the whistle-blower information”.

Olukoyede’s call is important. Those who blow the lead on corrupt practices must not be put on arm’s way. They must be sufficiently protected. Their resolve to promote the anti-corruption crusade would be strengthened if they know the law will protect them in the act.

Since his appointment as the fifth executive chairman of the EFCC in October 2023, Olukoyede has ushered in a new era and leadership at the commission. A pastor and lawyer, he has left no one in doubts about his seriousness to wage the war on corruption and given the graft battle all it requires. Olukoyede has taken important steps to take the battle against corruption to a new high. He has taken on those hitherto viewed as sacred cows, those who could not be touched, let alone asked to account for their deeds.

At every turn, he uttered the right words and made the right call, though occasionally his haste and exuberance shone through. His passion and determination to clean the Augean stable is, however, unmistakable. His deep knowledge of the law has been a huge advantage, helping to moderate his handling of allegedly corrupt people.

While making a case for whistle-blowers to be protected, Olukoyede also urged Nigerians not to be motivated by pecuniary benefits in exposing corruption, stressing that incentives should not be the driving force of the policy. “A sustainable whistle-blower programme should be anchored on a moral foundation in which citizens provide information as a matter of patriotic duty, not propelled by a desire for reward. Whistleblowing should be organic, not driven by pecuniary considerations,” he said.

For him, whistleblowing should also not be reactionary. “We should be more interested in whistleblowing that prevents the stealing of public funds rather than the recovery of funds. Once funds are looted, the entire loot may never be recovered,” he said.

Barely a year in office, the EFCC under Olukoyede’s watch has recorded considerable convictions of people for corrupt practices and made bounteous recoveries from proceeds of corruption. Between May 2023 and May 2024, it is on record that the commission secured a total of 3,451 convictions from 5, 376 cases filed in various courts. A total of 15,753 petitions were also received out of which 12, 287 cases were investigated within the same period.

It is a pointer to the visionary leadership being provided by Olukoyede and his commitment to a better Nigeria that the EFCC contributed the sum of N50 billion each to two of the key programmes of the President Bola Tinubu administration, the Nigeria Education Loan Fund and Consumer Credit programme, from the proceeds of corruption.

In the final analysis, the government and Nigerians generally, especially youths, must prioritize prevention and encourage behavioural changes towards anti-corruption. The news about the new mobile app for youth to report crimes is therefore a welcome development. The mobile application called mobiliser is specifically targeted at Nigerian youths and can be downloaded on phones to report crimes and criminalities.

According to the National Orientation Agency director-general, Lanre Isa-Onilu, who developed the app, this will give security operatives, comprising the Nigeria Police, the military and other security agencies, the opportunity to swing into action and trail criminals and bring them to book.

Indeed, we must continue to tighten the noose around corrupt officials if we are to promote transparency and accountability in public service. To actualise this, we need to revisit the matter of whistleblowing and protection for whistle-blowers. And the best way to protect whistle-blowers,in my view, is through the confidentiality of information.

Rahman is a senior presidential aide.

The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) says it recorded remittance inflows of $553 million in July.

This is a 130 percent increase from the corresponding period in 2023, the CBN said in a statement on Tuesday, signed by Hakama Sidi Ali, its acting director of corporate communications.

More to follow…

[TheCable]

This paper by Learned Senior Advocate, Dr Olukayode Ajulo, provides an in-depth examination of the legal status of cryptocurrencies, their validity as legal tender, the current legal framework for taxing cryptocurrencies in Nigeria, the challenges faced, and the potential future directions for policymakers

An Examination of the Current State and Future Directions

This paper by Learned Senior Advocate, Dr Olukayode Ajulo, provides an in-depth examination of the legal status of cryptocurrencies, their validity as legal tender, the current legal framework for taxing cryptocurrencies in Nigeria, the challenges faced, and the potential future directions for policymakers

Introduction

A cryptocurrency (also known as virtual currency), is a type of decentralised digital currency that investors can buy and sell along the blockchain. Unlike banknotes or minted coins that have tangible, physical forms, cryptocurrencies can only be accessed using computers and other electronic devices. While there are thousands of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, Ethereum, Binance coin, Dogecoin, etc., many with unique traits, they all tend to work in similar ways. The rapid growth and adoption of cryptocurrencies worldwide, have presented significant regulatory and taxation challenges for governments, including Nigeria. As one of the countries with a burgeoning cryptocurrency market, Nigeria has grappled with the task of developing a comprehensive legal and taxation framework, to address the unique aspects of this emerging asset class.

*Overview of the Current Legal Framework*

The legal framework for the taxation of cryptocurrencies in Nigeria is still evolving, as the Nigerian Government has not yet enacted specific legislation to address the taxation of cryptocurrency transactions. However, there are some existing laws and regulations that can be applied to the taxation of cryptocurrencies in Nigeria. Here’s an overview of the current legal framework:

1. Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Regulations: The Central Bank of Nigeria has issued several circulars and directives regarding the regulation of cryptocurrency activities in Nigeria. In 2021, the CBN prohibited banks and other financial institutions from facilitating cryptocurrency transactions. However, the CBN has not explicitly addressed the taxation of cryptocurrencies in its regulations.

2. Income Tax Laws: The relevant income tax laws in Nigeria, such as the Companies Income Tax Act (CITA) LFN 2004 and the Personal Income Tax Act (PITA) LFN, 2004, do not specifically mention cryptocurrencies. However, the Nigerian tax authorities can potentially consider cryptocurrency transactions as either business income or capital gains, depending on the nature of the transaction and the taxpayer’s activities.

3. Value Added Tax (VAT) Act: The Value Added Tax Act (CAP. V1 LFN, 2004) in Nigeria does not provide specific guidance on the VAT treatment of cryptocurrency transactions. The Nigerian tax authorities may consider applying VAT to certain cryptocurrency-related services, such as cryptocurrency exchange services or the sale of digital assets.

4. Regulatory Guidance: The Nigerian government, through the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), has issued some guidance on the taxation of cryptocurrencies. In 2019, the FIRS released a public notice stating that gains from cryptocurrency transactions should be subject to capital gains tax. The SEC has also provided guidance on the classification and regulation of certain cryptocurrency-based assets, which may have implications for their taxation.

It is however important to note that the legal framework for the taxation of cryptocurrencies in Nigeria is still evolving, and there may be additional developments or clarifications from the Nigerian government in the future. Taxpayers and businesses involved in cryptocurrency activities in Nigeria should stay informed about any updates or changes in the relevant laws and regulations.

*Legality and Legal Status of Cryptocurrencies in Nigeria*

Legal or Illegal?

There is no legislation in Nigeria that expressly bans the usage of cryptocurrencies. In normative systems such as law, without an express prohibition of a conduct (whether an act or omission) by a code, such a conduct is permitted. Its application in legal philosophy is that an action is permitted if it is not prohibited.  In criminal law, this is known as the principle of nullum crimen sine lege (Latin, meaning “there is no crime where there is no law”). 

When applied to legislation, it simply means that the existence of a crime depends on there being a previous legal provision declaring the action to be an offence. This is the jurisprudence behind the provision in Section 36(12) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) that“…a person shall not be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence is defined and the penalty therefor is prescribed in a written law”.The courts have consistently upheld this principle (Aoko v. Fagbemi (1961) 1 All NLR 1; Amadi v. FRN [2011] All FWLR (Pt. 561) 1588). In the absence of a statutory prohibition of cryptocurrencies in Nigeria, their creation, use or dealing in them is lawful as they do not contravene any law in existence.

Legal or Non-Legal Tender?

Apart from the question of the legality of cryptocurrencies in Nigeria, another important consideration is whether they constitute legal tender.  A legal tender refers to the money that is legally recognised in a defined jurisdiction as the means of exchange, i.e., acceptable for use to purchase goods or services and for settlement of debt or other obligations. Legal tenders take the forms of coins and banknotes (sometimes referred to as “currency”).

The Supreme Court in the case of Okpara v FRN (1977) while explaining the concept of a legal tender in contradistinction to a counterfeit held as follows:

“Counterfeit, in relation to a bank note or current coin of a kind which is legal tender in Nigeria, means a bank note or current coin made or issued other than by or by the authority of the Central Bank of Nigeria and in relation to a bank note or current coin of a kind which is not legal tender in Nigeria means a bank note or current coin made or issued other than by or by the authority of the body which, under the laws of the country in which the bank note or current coin is legal tender, is authorised to make or issue such bank note or current coin.” Per BELLO, J.S.C. (P. 7, paras. A-C)

Generally, the characteristics of a legal tender include:

a) regulation by a national government or regional formation;

[b) only a statutory authority is permitted by law to create legal tender, such as the national banks or mints;

c) the primary medium of exchange and people who trade within the jurisdiction are bound to accept it for the settlement of transactions; and

d) a unique name which identifies with a particular nation or region.

In Nigeria, the body empowered by law to issue legal tender is the CBN.  Furthermore, the law also prescribes the unit of currency and its subdivision which is the Naira – further divisible into one hundred Kobo (CBN Act No. 7 of 2007, sections 2 and 15; Decimal Currency Act Cap.  D2 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN) 2004, Section 1).  According to Section 17 of the CBN Act: 

“The Bank shall have the sole right of issuing currency notes and coins throughout Nigeria and neither the Federal Government nor any State Government or Local Government, other person or authority shall issue currency notes, bank notes or coins or any documents or tokens payable to bearer on demand being document or token which are likely to pass as legal tender”.

CBN also determines the exchange rate of the Naira to other currencies in the world, and arranges for the printing of currency notes and the minting of coins. Currency notes and coins issued by CBN, shall be legal tender in Nigeria at their face value for the payment of any amount.

These laws largely apply to Nigerian currency and where they make reference to foreign currency, they seem to envisage foreign fiat currency.  In view of the foregoing, it is therefore, submitted that since cryptocurrencies are not issued by CBN they are not legal tender.    Therefore, laws currently governing the  CBN’s  legal tender (Naira)  may  not  be  applied  to cryptocurrencies, unless expressly revised to such.

*The Regulatory Landscape

Cryptocurrency Regulation in Nigeria*

Nigeria’s approach to cryptocurrency regulation has been cautious and evolving. The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has issued several circulars and directives, aimed at limiting the use of cryptocurrencies in the country. In 2017, the CBN cautioned banks and other financial institutions against facilitating cryptocurrency transactions, citing the risks associated with their use.

In 2021, the CBN went a step further by ordering the closure of bank accounts belonging to entities or individuals involved in cryptocurrency transactions. This directive was met with criticism from the cryptocurrency community, who argued that it stifled innovation and financial inclusion in the country. Despite these regulatory actions, the legal status of cryptocurrencies in Nigeria remains ambiguous, as there is no comprehensive legislation specifically addressing their use and classification.

*Efforts Towards Regulation*

In recent years, there have been some efforts by the Nigerian Government to develop a more comprehensive regulatory framework for cryptocurrencies. In 2020, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of Nigeria released a set of regulations for digital assets and their service providers, which included guidelines for the issuance, exchange, and custody of cryptocurrencies.

However, the implementation and enforcement of these regulations have been limited, as the SEC’s authority over cryptocurrency activities has been challenged by the CBN’s directives. This regulatory uncertainty has created a significant barrier to the growth and adoption of cryptocurrencies in Nigeria. Nevertheless, when SEC published the SEC Rules on Issuance, Offering and Custody of Digital Assets in May, 2022, it was generally understood that the SEC Rules will apply to cryptocurrencies as either digital assets or virtual assets.

*Regulation of Cryptocurrencies in Other Selected Jurisdictions*

*European Union*

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) on 22 October, 2015 in the case of Skatteverket v David Hedqvist held that transactions to exchange a traditional currency for bitcoin and vice versa constitute the supply of services for consideration. It can be argued that although the case relates only to Bitcoin, the decision will apply to other cryptocurrencies.

The court also held in the case that such transactions are exempt from Value Added Tax (VAT) in the European Union. However, while it appears that the Directive as well as case law recognises virtual currencies as medium of exchange in the European Union, it is doubtful whether it can be considered legal tender as the Directive clearly states that “it is not necessarily attached to a fiat currency”.  As such a person cannot legally be compelled to receive it in a transaction unless he is bound by any agreement to that effect.

*United States of America (USA)*

Just as in Nigeria, in the US, cryptocurrencies are not considered as legal tender but their use and dealing in them are legal. Laws governing virtual currency exchanges vary by state. At the federal level, authorities differ in their categorisation of cryptocurrencies. While the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) since 2013 considers them to be mediums of exchange on the basis that tokens are “other value that substitutes for currency” under the Code of Federal Regulations, the Inland Revenue Services (IRS) by contrast, regards cryptocurrencies as property, and has issued tax guidance accordingly.

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (USSEC), considers cryptocurrencies to be securities while the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) describes Bitcoin and cryptocurrency derivatives as commodities and allows them to be traded publicly. The Justice Department is collaborating with USSEC and CFTC to streamline regulatory oversight and ensure effective consumer protection.

*South Africa*

There is no specific law or regulation governing virtual currencies in South Africa. Virtual currencies (VC) are not legal tender in the country and “any merchant or beneficiary may refuse VCs as a means of payment”. South African Reserve Bank (SARB) warned of various risks associated with the use of virtual currencies, including issues relating to payment systems and payment service providers, price stability, money-laundering and terrorism financing, consumer risk, transactions on decentralised ledgers without an intermediary. 

*Taxation of Cryptocurrencies*

The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) makes no provision for a specific definition of tax. Rather, it provides for the distribution of taxing powers among the federal, state and local governments. However, tax has been statutorily defines in the National Tax Policy, 2107 as any compulsory payment to government imposed by law without direct benefit or return of value or a service whether it is called tax or not. 

*The Current State of Cryptocurrency Taxation

Nigeria’s existing tax laws do not explicitly address the taxation of cryptocurrencies. The applicable tax statutes, such as the Personal Income Tax Act and the Companies Income Tax Act, do not provide clear guidelines on how various cryptocurrency-related activities, such as trading, mining, and payments, should be taxed. As a result, there is a lack of clarity on the appropriate tax treatment of cryptocurrencies, which has led to several challenges:

1. Classification of Cryptocurrencies: The absence of a clear legal classification of cryptocurrencies (e.g., as currency, asset, or commodity) has made it difficult to determine the appropriate tax treatment.

2. Compliance and Enforcement: Without specific guidelines, taxpayers and cryptocurrency users face uncertainty in fulfilling their tax obligations, leading to potential non-compliance.

3. Revenue Generation: The government’s inability to effectively tax cryptocurrency-related activities may result in the loss of potential tax revenue.

4. Investor Uncertainty: The regulatory ambiguity surrounding cryptocurrency taxation may deter potential investors and hinder the growth of the cryptocurrency market in Nigeria.

Attempts at Addressing Cryptocurrency Taxation

The Nigerian government has made some attempts to address the taxation of cryptocurrencies, but these efforts have been limited in scope and impact. In 2020, the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS), the country’s tax authority, issued a public notice acknowledging the existence of cryptocurrencies and stating that they should be taxed in accordance with existing tax laws. However, the notice lacked specific guidance on the applicable tax treatment and reporting requirements.

More recently, in 2022, the FIRS announced the establishment of a dedicated Cryptocurrency Tax Compliance Team to enhance the monitoring and taxation of cryptocurrency transactions in Nigeria. While this move was seen as a step in the right direction, the team’s specific mandate and the implementation of effective tax compliance measures remain unclear.

Challenges and Limitations

The lack of a comprehensive legal and taxation framework for cryptocurrencies in Nigeria has resulted in several challenges and limitations, including:

1. Regulatory Uncertainty: The ambiguous legal status of cryptocurrencies and the conflicting directives from different regulatory bodies have created an uncertain environment for cryptocurrency users and investors.

2. Tax Compliance and Enforcement: The absence of clear tax guidelines for cryptocurrencies has made it difficult for taxpayers to comply with their obligations, and for tax authorities to effectively enforce compliance.

3. Revenue Leakage: The government’s inability to effectively tax cryptocurrency-related activities have led to the potential loss of substantial tax revenue.

4. Hindered Market Development: The regulatory and taxation uncertainty surrounding cryptocurrencies may deter potential investors and hinder the growth and adoption of cryptocurrencies in Nigeria.

5. Lack of Clarity for Cryptocurrency Businesses: Cryptocurrency businesses, such as exchanges and service providers, face challenges in determining their tax obligations and structuring their operations accordingly.

Future Directions: Towards a Comprehensive Legal and Taxation Framework

To address the current limitations and challenges, the Nigerian government should consider the following future directions:

1.  Enacting Comprehensive Cryptocurrency Legislation: The government should enact comprehensive legislation that clearly defines the legal status of cryptocurrencies and provides a clear regulatory framework for their use and taxation.

2. Establishing Clear Tax Policies: The government should issue clear guidelines on the classification of cryptocurrencies for tax purposes and the treatment of various cryptocurrency-related activities, such as trading, mining, and payments.

3. Improving Tax Administration and Enforcement: The government should strengthen the capacity of tax authorities, such as the FIRS, to effectively monitor and enforce cryptocurrency-related tax compliance, including the development of specialised expertise and the use of technological solutions.

4. Fostering Collaboration and Stakeholder Engagement: The government should actively engage with cryptocurrency industry stakeholders, including exchanges, developers, and users, to better understand the dynamics of the cryptocurrency market and incorporate their feedback in the policymaking process.

5. Exploring Innovative Taxation Approaches: The government should consider innovative taxation approaches, such as the introduction of a withholding tax on cryptocurrency transactions or the implementation of a digital asset registry, to enhance tax compliance and revenue generation.

6. Promoting Regulatory Clarity and Coordination: The government should ensure coordination between regulatory bodies, such as the CBN and the SEC, to provide clear and consistent guidelines on the regulation and taxation of cryptocurrencies.

7. Adopting a Balanced Approach: The government should strive to strike a balance between regulating cryptocurrencies to mitigate risks and fostering an environment that supports innovation and the growth of the cryptocurrency market in Nigeria.

Conclusion

The legal framework for taxing cryptocurrencies in Nigeria is currently in a state of flux, presenting both challenges and opportunities for policymakers and regulators. By developing a comprehensive legal and taxation framework, establishing clear policies, and fostering collaboration with industry stakeholders, the Nigerian government can create a more conducive environment for the growth of the cryptocurrency market while ensuring the appropriate taxation of related activities. This balanced approach will be crucial in navigating the evolving landscape of cryptocurrency taxation in Nigeria and optimising the potential benefits for the country’s economic development.

Dr Olukayode Ajulo, OON, SAN, FCIArb (UK), Attorney-General of Ondo State 

https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2024/08/20/the-legal-framework-for-taxing-cryptocurrencies-in-nigeria/