For years, Nigeria has depended on various law enforcement agencies and government institutions to recover, manage, and dispose of assets linked to criminal activities. Under this system, agencies investigating financial crimes, drug trafficking, and other offences are empowered not only to trace and seize suspected proceeds of crime but to manage the assets once forfeited. However, sources reveal that the move to create a separate body to manage and dispose of seized assets triggered resistance from the Economic and Financial Crime Commission (EFCC), backed by Senate President Godswill Akpabio.
On July 9, 2026, the Senate passed a bill seeking to fundamentally alter how Nigeria manages properties and money recovered from criminal activities. One week later, the bill was rescinded over ‘drafting, legal and policy’ flaws.
Christined “The Proceeds of Crime Act (Amendment) Bill, 2026,” and sponsored by Idiat Adebule, the senator representing Lagos West, the bill had sought to establish a dedicated Proceeds of Crime Recovery and Management Agency to take charge of the recovery, preservation, management and disposal of assets reasonably suspected to have been derived from unlawful activities.
The proposal would change the framework established by the Proceeds of Crime (Recovery and Management) Act, 2022, which assigns proceeds-of-crime management responsibilities to 18 government organisations, including the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), Nigeria Police Force, National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA), Nigerian Customs Service, Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU) and Department of State Services (DSS).
Although the Nigerian Senate cited legal and policy flaws for rescinding the bill’s passage, the ICIR could confidently report that the reversal was allegedly orchestrated by Senate President Godswill Akpabio, whom a source privy to the matter alleged had frustrated the agency’s establishment.
The source alleged that the Senate President led the movement to withdraw the bill’s passage, ostensibly after being convinced by the EFCC and “other powerful people in government.” This is despite the bill passing through first and second readings, a public hearing, consideration by the Committee of the Whole, approval of all 51 clauses and third reading.
In a submission to the Senate Committee, sources said the EFCC gave several reasons for opposing the proposed agency, including that the new agency would duplicate existing institutions, increase government expenditure, create jurisdictional conflicts, and expose recovered assets to corruption and political interference.
But documents reviewed by The ICIR show that the bill was designed to strengthen the existing law and address some weaknesses that have characterised Nigeria’s current asset-recovery system.
Under the proposed amendment bill, the EFCC and other relevant organisations would retain their investigative and prosecutorial responsibilities but not their existing proceeds-of-crime management structures, with the functions transferred to the new agency.
Nigeria’s sprawling asset-recovery structure
Nigeria’s 2022 Proceeds of Crime Act was an attempt to create a comprehensive framework for dealing with criminal assets. The law provides for the seizure, confiscation, forfeiture and management of properties suspected to have been derived from unlawful activities.
The Act also provides for non-conviction-based recovery and the eventual handover, management and disposal of forfeited properties. But rather than establishing one agency to perform these functions, the law distributed the responsibility among existing institutions.
The EFCC, ICPC, NDLEA and DSS, alongside the Nigeria Police Force, Nigeria Customs Service, Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU), Armed Forces of Nigeria and National Agency for the Prohibition of Trafficking in Persons (NAPTIP), are designated as “relevant organisations” under the law.
The list also includes the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA), Nigeria Immigration Service, Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA), National Inland Waterways Authority (NIWA), Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC), Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) and other organisations.
Section 3 of the Act provides for the “Establishment and functions of the Proceeds of Crimes Management Directorate in the relevant organisation,” while other provisions give relevant organisations powers and duties over properties seized in the course of investigations and proceedings.
This arrangement means that institutions involved in investigating and recovering proceeds of crime are also responsible for managing the assets recovered through their operations.
The 2022 Act also provides for a Confiscated and Forfeited Properties Account to be maintained at the Central Bank of Nigeria and managed by the head of the relevant organisation, while money realised from the “sale, management or other form of disposal of forfeited assets” is paid into the account.
The law therefore does not completely separate the institution responsible for investigating a financial crime from the one responsible for managing property recovered. Instead, it gives relevant organisations specific responsibilities for the custody, management and disposal of proceeds of crime.
Each agency is required to establish a Proceeds of Crime Management Directorate which combines several functions central to the recovery process, including investigating, recovering and taking possession of forfeited property, managing it, and, in specified circumstances, disposing of it.
Section 3 of the Act also requires the directorates to establish asset-management and disposal systems, maintain databases of seized and recovered assets, keep statistics of amounts recovered and managed and maintain accurate inventories showing the location, value, condition and court status of assets.
The directorates are also empowered to appoint private asset managers, auctioneers, accountants, consultants, investment advisers and other experts. This means that under the existing framework, the same institutions involved in investigating financial crimes are also responsible for managing the assets recovered from those investigations.
The gaps lawmakers intended to close
Idiat Adebule, senator representing Lagos West and sponsor of the amendment bill, argued in 2025 that the existing structure created what she described as “fragmentation” in the management of recovered assets.
When she introduced the bill in May 2025, Adebule said allowing several agencies to investigate, prosecute and manage assets had produced “overlapping functions, institutional rivalry and poor accountability.”
She added that the proposed amendment would separate the investigation and prosecution of cases from the management of recovered assets, establish uniform guidelines for handling forfeited properties and create an automated database to strengthen transparency.
The bill consequently sought to create a central agency to streamline the process and improve transparency.
In June 2026, Adeniyi Adegbonmire, chairman of the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters, said while presenting its report that the proposed amendment seeks to establish a Proceeds of Crime Recovery and Management Agency, with legal responsibility for recovering, preserving and disposing of properties reasonably suspected to have been derived from unlawful activities.
“The senate committee on judiciary, human rights and legal matters… recommends that the senate do consider and pass the bill for an act to amend the Proceeds of Crime Recovery and Management Act by establishing a proceeds of crime recovery and management agency with full legal responsibility to manage the recovery, preservation and disposal of properties reasonably suspected to have been derived from unlawful activities and for related matters, subject to the observations, findings and amendments set out in this report,” he said.
He added that proposed legislation seeks to address a significant gap in Nigeria’s anti-corruption framework.
The Senate subsequently resolved into a Committee of the Whole, considered the bill clause by clause and passed it for third reading through voice vote.
What the new bill is proposing
Findings by the ICIR show that the proposed amendment would replace the existing system of managing recovered assets through separate government agencies with a centralised structure under a new Proceeds of Crime Recovery and Management Agency.
The bill proposes that the existing 18 Proceeds of Crime Management Directorates be dissolved within 12 months of the law taking effect, with their “staff, assets, records and functions” being transferred to the proposed agency.
This means existing law-enforcement bodies such as the EFCC, ICPC, police and other relevant organisations would retain their investigative and prosecutorial responsibilities while the new agency takes over the management of recovered and forfeited assets.
The amendment bill shows that, if passed into law, the agency would have “full legal responsibility to manage the recovery, preservation and disposal of properties reasonably suspected to have been derived from unlawful activities.”
The bill also proposes a central system for recording and tracking recovered assets, providing for a database and records covering properties under the agency’s custody, including information necessary to monitor their management and eventual disposal.
Based on the amendment bill, the proposed agency would also be required to publish information on forfeited properties disposed of, including the “disposal method, amount realised and money paid into government accounts.”
It also provides for “independent performance and value-for-money audits” and an independent oversight advisory panel as part of the proposed oversight framework.
In effect, the bill proposes three major changes: dissolving the existing 18 asset-management directorates, transferring their personnel, records, assets and functions to a central agency, and separating the management of recovered assets from the investigation and prosecution of the crimes from which the assets were recovered.
On the funding of the proposed agency, the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters proposed the establishment of a dedicated fund for the agency.
Under the provision, the fund would comprise sums appropriated by the National Assembly, a percentage not exceeding five per cent of the net value of assets recovered and forfeited annually, as may be prescribed by the President, and grants, donations or contributions from any lawful source approved by the agency.
The proposal requires the Central Bank of Nigeria and Securities and Exchange Commission to provide technical assistance to the agency within 14 working days of a written request.
While presenting its report, the committee said this was not simply the creation of another bureaucracy but argued that consolidating the 18 directorates would be consistent with the Oronsaye Report’s recommendation for rationalising government functions. It claimed that the combined operational cost of maintaining the existing directorates exceeds the projected cost of one properly resourced agency.
EFCC kicks, says existing system works
Sources familiar with the EFCC’s position said the commission believes Nigeria’s existing asset-recovery framework is sufficient and that creating a separate agency could lead to overlapping mandates, jurisdictional conflicts and higher administrative costs.
The EFCC, in a document presented to the National Assembly and obtained by The ICIR, cited the experience of the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), where concerns have previously been raised over debt recovery, asset valuation, disposal processes and transparency. The commission explained that its involvement in AMCON-related cases is said to have led to the creation of a dedicated unit to handle such matters.
The EFCC’s position, according to insiders, is that existing law-enforcement agencies already have powers to trace, seize and forfeit assets, making another institution unnecessary. Creating another institution, it believes, could result in overlapping mandates and “turf wars” over which agency should control particular assets.
The anti-graft agency also argued that establishing the proposed agency without consequential amendments to the laws establishing other law-enforcement institutions would create jurisdictional conflicts.
The EFCC also warned that the new institution would require offices, personnel, budgets and administrative structures, increasing government expenditure at a time Nigeria is attempting to streamline its agencies. It said resources that would be spent establishing the new agency could instead be used to strengthen existing law-enforcement and justice institutions.
The EFCC further warned that concentrating large amounts of recovered money and property in one agency could create opportunities for internal corruption.
It said that without strong transparency and compliance mechanisms, assets could be lost, undervalued or sold to cronies, warning that a powerful new agency could become vulnerable to political interference and selective enforcement.
However, this argument is in contrast to the proposed amendment, which contains specific provisions that address the EFCC’s concerns. The proposed bill reflects that the agency would be required to maintain certified custody records for seized and forfeited assets from seizure to final disposal.
It would also be required to make quarterly disclosures on forfeited properties disposed of, including the disposal method, amount realised and money paid into the relevant government account.
The proposal further introduces independent performance and value-for-money audits and an independent oversight advisory panel comprising representatives from civil society, the legal profession, academia and professional bodies.
EFCC’s past asset-management record raises accountability questions
The EFCC’s opposition to the proposed agency comes at a time when its own record in managing recovered assets has raised questions about transparency and accountability.
Under Section 3 of the Proceeds of Crime (Recovery and Management) Act, 2022, the commission’s Proceeds of Crime Management Directorate is required to ensure accountability in the management of forfeited properties, establish asset-management and disposal systems, maintain a central database of seized and recovered assets, keep statistics of amounts recovered and managed, and maintain an accurate inventory showing the location, value, condition and legal status of every asset.
But reports from a previous government audit suggest that the commission has struggled to meet some of these basic obligations.
In 2015, George Uboh, a security expert and whistleblower, accused then EFCC Chairman, Ibrahim Lamorde, of diverting more than N1 trillion in recovered funds and assets. Uboh specifically alleged that proceeds from assets recovered from former Bayelsa State governor Diepreye Alamieyeseigha and former Inspector-General of Police Tafa Balogun had not been fully accounted for. He also alleged that the commission concealed details of unsold forfeited properties and failed to remit some recovered funds.
The allegations triggered investigations by the National Assembly. In February 2016, however, the House of Representatives Committee on Financial Crimes said it could not establish the veracity of Uboh’s N1 trillion theft allegation against Lamorde. Lamorde had also denied the allegations and sued newspapers that published reports accusing him of diverting recovered funds.
Similarly, in 2020, a Presidential Committee on the Audit of Recovered Assets (PCARA), which examined assets recovered by the EFCC, found discrepancies in the commission’s records and raised questions about its management of forfeited properties.
The committee found that the EFCC had reported 836 recovered real estate properties in a return made in April 2017. But in subsequent submissions to the committee, the commission reported 339 properties in December 2017 and 504 in March 2018, leaving discrepancies of 497 and 332 properties respectively.
The committee subsequently found that some properties listed by the commission could not be traced. Others had deteriorated, remained occupied by persons from whom they had been recovered or had been disposed of without adequate records. It also reported discrepancies involving vessels, hotels and other forfeited assets.
In one case, the committee found that the EFCC had reported 21 hotels under interim forfeiture, but only eight could be found during verification. It also reported that 42 fuel stations listed under temporary forfeiture could not all be verified, with only eight found. The committee further reported that 13 of 154 vessels handed over to the commission had submerged with their contents.
However, in January 2025, the commission said it dismissed some officials and was investigating others over alleged fraud and theft involving exhibits and recovered assets, including cash and gold bars.
It said 27 officers were dismissed for misconduct and fraudulent activities in 2024, while 10 officers in the Lagos zonal command were detained over alleged theft of operational items. The EFCC subsequently ordered an audit of recovered assets across its zonal offices.
These findings are significant because they go directly to the statutory responsibility the EFCC is now relying upon to oppose the creation of a separate asset-management agency.
N48bn recovery discrepancy
Beyond that, the presidential panel also identified discrepancies between the amounts the EFCC reported as recovered and evidence of money lodged in bank accounts.
According to the panel, the EFCC reported N46.04 billion as the naira equivalent of foreign-currency recoveries between May 2015 and November 2018, but produced evidence of lodgements amounting to about N37.53 billion, leaving a difference of approximately N8.5 billion.
For naira recoveries, the panel said the EFCC reported about N582.87 billion, while evidence of actual bank lodgements showed about N543.51 billion, leaving a difference of approximately N39.36 billion for which, according to the panel, the commission failed to produce supporting records.
International models in separating asset recovery
The ICIR reports that the proposed shift towards a dedicated asset-recovery and management agency is not unique to Nigeria, as several countries have adopted systems that separate the investigation of financial crimes from the management of assets recovered from such offences.
In Italy, the National Agency for the Administration and Destination of Seized and Confiscated Assets (ANBSC) was established to administer and dispose of assets seized or confiscated from organised crime. The agency operates separately from investigative bodies such as the Italian Anti-Mafia Investigation Directorate. ANBSC takes responsibility for assets after judicial decisions and works with public institutions and other stakeholders on their eventual reuse or disposal.
Other African countries have adopted similar approaches. South Africa established the Asset Forfeiture Unit within the National Prosecuting Authority to pursue civil and criminal forfeiture, while asset-management responsibilities are handled through a separate mechanism.
Kenya has adopted a similar approach through its Assets Recovery Agency (ARA), established under the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act. The agency also has a distinct institutional mandate to identify, trace, freeze, seize and recover proceeds of crime and operates separately from conventional investigative bodies. Its legal framework provides for judicial oversight of preservation and forfeiture proceedings, while the agency reports on its activities and recoveries.
Similar arrangements exist in Francophone West Africa, including Benin, Côte d’Ivoire and Mali, where specialised agencies have been established to seize, manage seized and confiscated assets.
In Benin, the National Agency for the Recovery of Confiscated and Seized Assets (ANRACS) operates under the Ministry of Justice and handles assets seized or confiscated in criminal proceedings. Its role includes the management and eventual disposal of the properties. In March 2026, for instance, ANRACS, working with the Economic and Financial Brigade and security forces, incinerated more than 200 tonnes of seized medicines at Ouidah. In June, the agency also incinerated 95kg of drugs and medicines seized in judicial proceedings.
Also, Côte d’Ivoire has established the Agency for the Management and Recovery of Criminal Assets (AGRAC), which is responsible for managing and recovering frozen, seized and confiscated criminal assets.
Mali provides another example through its Agency for the Recovery and Management of Seized or Confiscated Assets (ARGASC), established in 2022 as a public administrative institution under the supervision of the Justice Ministry. Its mandate covers the recovery and management of assets seized or confiscated in criminal proceedings involving economic and financial offences.
Another anti-corruption agency disagrees with EFCC position
Interestingly, while the EFCC has opposed the proposed agency, a top official of another anti-corruption agency told The ICIR that it supports the establishment of an independent body to manage and dispose of assets forfeited to the government.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said anti-corruption agencies should not be responsible for both investigating and prosecuting financial crimes and managing or disposing of assets recovered from those cases.
“The truth is that our position is that anti-corruption agencies should not manage and dispose of proceeds of crime. The same agency that investigates and prosecutes criminal matters should not be the one managing and selling assets recovered as proceeds of crime. It does not make for accountability. Let there be an independent agency to manage the assets. That is the standard practice in many parts of the world, even in Africa,” the official stated.
Continuing, he said being in charge of asset recovery, management and disposal opens anti-corruption agencies to possible corruption, as there could be pressure from government officials, friends and family members to buy assets at cheap or discounted amounts.
“It is a big distraction from the work of anti-corruption agencies, I tell you. And, I assure you that is the attitude of some of our sister agencies,” the source concluded.
EFCC, Senate keep mum
However, when contacted, both the Senate and the EFCC failed to respond to the allegations levelled against them.
On Thursday, August 26, The ICIR contacted EFCC spokesperson, Dele Oyewale, by telephone and made subsequent attempts to reach him through WhatsApp and SMS, seeking the commission’s response to the allegations and questions raised in this report.
He neither answered the calls nor responded to the messages as of the time of publication.
The ICIR also contacted the Senate spokesperson Yemi Adaramodu on Thursday, August 26, seeking clarification on the circumstances surrounding the rescission of the bill, the alleged opposition to the proposed agency and the reported role of the Senate leadership in the reversal.
The inquiries, which were made through telephone calls and follow-up messages via WhatsApp and SMS, were not responded to.
The ICIR again contacted both Oyewale and Adaramodu on Friday, August 28, but they had yet to respond as of the time of publication.
The ICIR also sought responses from Jackson Udom, Media Assistant to Senate President Godswill Akpabio, and Eseme Eyiboh, Senior Special Adviser on Media and Publicity to the Senate President, on Monday, August 31.
A call to Udom’s telephone line was answered by a person who said the aide was unavailable. Udom also did not respond to follow-up WhatsApp and SMS messages sent to his line.
Eyiboh, meanwhile, did not answer calls or respond to WhatsApp and SMS messages sent to him as of the time of publication.
Mustapha Usman is an investigative journalist with the International Centre for Investigative Reporting. You can easily reach him via: musman@icirnigeria.com. He tweets @UsmanMustapha_M