Corruption: ICPC Pushes Preventive Strategies, Seeks Lessons From Russia
By Pan Afric Reporters
The Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) has called for stronger preventive strategies, institutional safeguards and innovative measures to tackle corruption risks before they develop into corrupt practices.
The Commission made the call at its Fourth International Diplomatic Dialogue held on Tuesday, September 22, 2026, at its headquarters in Abuja, according to a statement issued by the ICPC Head of Media and Public Communications, J. Okor Odey.
The dialogue, organised by the Anti-Corruption Academy of Nigeria (ACAN), the research and training arm of the ICPC, was themed “Development of Anti-Corruption Strategies and Policies: The Russian National Experience.”
Speaking at the event, ICPC Chairman, Dr Musa Adamu Aliyu, SAN, said corruption remained a major threat to development, requiring anti-corruption institutions to continuously develop practical approaches that strengthen institutions, promote transparency and accountability, and rebuild public confidence.
“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,” Aliyu said.
The ICPC chairman urged participants to ensure that lessons from the diplomatic dialogue translated into concrete institutional reforms and improved 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,” he said.
The Minister Counsellor/Charge d’Affaires of the Embassy of the Russian Federation in Nigeria, Mr Igor Ivannikov, who presented Russia’s experience, said effective anti-corruption systems must combine punishment for offences already committed with measures designed to address the conditions that facilitate corruption.
According to Ivannikov, criminal punishment alone cannot eliminate the underlying conditions that enable corrupt practices, making prevention an essential component of a sustainable anti-corruption framework.
He identified income and asset declarations by designated categories of public officials, expenditure monitoring and conflict-of-interest prevention among the preventive tools deployed under Russia’s anti-corruption system.
The Russian diplomat explained that financial declarations enable authorities to compare the legitimate income of public officials with their actual financial and property holdings, potentially helping to identify unexplained wealth and other corruption risks.
He also highlighted anti-corruption reviews of legislation, which he said were designed to identify provisions that could create opportunities for corrupt practices, including excessively broad official powers, unjustified discretion and unclear administrative procedures.
On public procurement, Ivannikov said Russia had increasingly adopted digital platforms and risk-based monitoring to improve transparency in procurement and contract administration. He, however, cautioned that digitalisation alone could not eliminate corruption without effective oversight, access to information and accountability for violations.
He further identified institutional measures such as codes of ethics, conflict-of-interest procedures, designated anti-corruption compliance officers and regular corruption-risk assessments as important elements of preventive anti-corruption systems.
The Russian diplomat also outlined the enforcement side of the country’s anti-corruption framework, including investigation of corruption-related crimes, tracing and freezing illicit assets, prosecution and judicial determination of cases.
Earlier, ACAN Provost, Professor Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim, explained the evolution of Russia’s legal and institutional framework for preventing, detecting and addressing corruption.
Ibrahim identified the Russian Criminal Code, Code of Administrative Offences, Federal Law on Civil Service and Federal Law on Combating Corruption as part of the country’s legal architecture for tackling corruption.
He also highlighted the roles of institutions 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.
The ACAN Provost particularly noted the role of specialised anti-corruption units within the Prosecutor General’s Office and prosecutors’ offices at constituent-entity level, established in 2007 in line with Article 36 of the United Nations Convention against Corruption.
He further acknowledged Russia’s contribution to the establishment and continued support of the International Anti-Corruption Academy, stressing the importance of specialised training and institutional capacity development in sustaining long-term anti-corruption efforts.
The dialogue provided a platform for Nigerian and Russian stakeholders to exchange experiences on prevention, enforcement, institutional safeguards and policy approaches, with the ICPC stressing the need to adapt useful comparative lessons to Nigeria’s institutional and legal environment.
