The menace of corruption has bedeviled Nigeria over the years. Several statutory and policy attempts have been devised to arrest this ill, with hardly a positive result. The present administration tackles corruption in Nigeria through the whistle blowing policy. Although the policy was received with mixed feelings, it recorded tremendous success at the initial stage. However, the story subsequently changed. The decline may be attributed to the number of problems the policy created more than it sought to solve. One of the major challenges associated with this policy is lack of legislation facilitating it. Similarly, the policy is more interested in recovering funds than in punishing the actors behind the act thus vitiating the punitive objective of the criminal justice system which serves as deterrence. The whistle blower seems inadequately protected. This paper seeks to examine the law and practice of whistle blowing policy in Nigeria vis-a-vis what is obtainable in some jurisdictions. It submits that the current legal practice is inadequate to strengthen the policy in Nigeria. This work finds that unless some global standards and practices are adopted, the fight against corruption in Nigeria through the whistle blowing policy may be counterproductive.

The prosecution of smuggling of goods is bedeviled with procedural difficulties to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and so, does not follow the usual procedures of criminal justice. This article focuses on determining whether the reversal of the burden of proof, which is common to most customs laws, offends the general notion of presumption of innocence of the accused. The paper adopts a comparative analysis of relevant statutes and case law. It finds that statutes which impose the burden of proof on the accused in certain circumstances are valid but misapplied by the courts in Nigeria. Given the peculiar nature of smuggling, it is not difficult to appreciate the rationale for placing the burden on the accused to prove certain facts especially those within his peculiar knowledge. This will however not justify the misapplication of such provisions that reverse the burden of proof as was the case in Board of Customs and Excise v Ibrahim Barau. The paper recommends a judicial rethink that will ensure the proper application of section 190 of the Nigerian CEMA whenever the opportunity presents itself. Prosecution, Smuggling of Goods, Strict Liability Offences, Mental Fault, Intermediate Offences, Absolute Prohibition, Presumption of Innocence, Reversed Burden of Proof, Customs and Excise Laws, Nigeria

No abstract

No abstract

Nigeria’s Public Procurement Act 2007 was a response to the World Bank’s assessment of Nigeria’s Public Procurement system in 1999. The assessment revealed weaknesses in the system which called for urgent reforms. The Country`s Procurement Assessment Report (CPAR) showed that Nigeria’s public procurement system was without a legal framework, hence the setbacks. This paper investigates the impact of the Public Procurement Act 2007 on the functions of the governing councils of federal universities in Nigeria, applying the doctrinal research methodology. The study finds that there was another federal legislation: Universities (Miscellaneous Provision) Act No 11 of 1993 (as Amended) that established the federal universities’ governing councils and vested in them the authority to run these universities. The powers of the vice chancellors under the Public Procurement Act 2007 overlap with the functions of the governing councils under the extant 1993 Act. While the later Act made the Vice Chancellor the accounting officer with special responsibilities on issues relating to procurement, it was silent on the level of authority that the governing councils could exert on the universities. The paper also finds some merits and demerits of the Public Procurement Act 2007 in federal universities and concludes that there are still weaknesses in the enforcement and enforceability of the Act. It recommended chiefly, an amendment of the Public Procurement Act 2007 together with the Universities (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1993 to resolve the overlapping mandates.