By Anthony Edemenaha
In Nigeria’s governance theatre, the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) serves as a stern gatekeeper, requiring public officers to declare their assets, liabilities, and interests.
However, the script reveals a different story. Declarations arrive with pomp, but verification, the plot’s engine, has been left backstage, rusting in the broom closet of political convenience.
A recent wave of reportage exposed a disquieting pattern: declarations are made with glossy certainty, yet composite verification appears to be a mere afterthought.
The public feels deja vu, having seen this before, same actors, same lines, same curtain call. It’s as if the Bureau outsourced integrity to the statute of limitations, counting on time to erode truth rather than eradicate it.
Anecdotes serve as reminders.
Consider the local council chairman or the state governor who declares assets that multiply when no one is looking, or the federal minister who lists holdings in five different currencies, breathing a sigh of relief that verification didn’t occur.
Declared assets sometimes look suspiciously similar to declared salaries, as if the ledger learned incremental budgeting for virtue. These discrepancies aren’t mere errors; they’re disclaimers in tuxedos. The CCB’s practice resembles a bridge with decayed planks.
Declarations are elegant arches, admired in photographs and press conferences, but supporting beams, verification protocols, cross-checks, and independent audits sit at water level, neglected and infested.
The metaphor is clear: surface-cleaning a façade doesn’t replace treating the water. The public knows a river can irrigate reform only when tributaries and verifications flow with integrity and rigour.
The problem lies not only in the absence of rigorous verification but also in the pattern of beginning with a declaration and ending with little more than a declaration. Governance by declaration isn’t governance by disclosure.
We declare, applaud, and move on, perpetuating a ritual masquerading as reform. The CCB’s posture resembles a procurement process in which tender documents emphasise value for money, but the bidding phase never tests the market.
The recent episodes illuminate a larger moral economy at play: a political elite treating the CCB as a ceremonial gatekeeper rather than a vigilant custodian of public trust. When verification is optional or composite, it signals that integrity is negotiable.
The result is a culture where assets grow while oversight shrinks, and the public becomes a spectator to declared wealth outpacing declared earnings.
The CCB’s failure to verify asset declarations undermines the Constitution. The Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act mandates the Bureau to verify and ensure compliance. By failing to do so, the CCB is abdicating its responsibility and betraying the public’s trust.
Importantly, to prevent anticipatory declarations, the CCB must go beyond mere documentation and interrogate the source of income used to acquire the declared assets. A public officer with no verifiable means of income, or whose declared assets far outweigh the income earned during the period under review, raises serious questions about the legitimacy of their wealth.
The CCB must subject such declarations to intense scrutiny, demanding concrete evidence of the officer’s financial history and the sources of their wealth.
A robust remedy must be both architectural and cultural. Architecturally, the CCB must strengthen its verification framework with mandatory, independent verification, cross-departmental data sharing, and swift sanctions.
Culturally, the public and press must treat declarations as living documents, scrutinising verification as diligently as declarations. Public figures must understand that a declaration is a covenant of trust, not a loophole.
To restore the integrity of the asset declaration process, the CCB must adopt a more proactive approach, conducting thorough investigations into the sources of income for declared assets, verifying the authenticity of documents submitted, and imposing sanctions on officials who fail to comply or provide false information.
The CCB’s administration of asset declaration is a charade that must end. The Bureau must take concrete actions to verify and enforce compliance. By doing so, it will not only uphold the Constitution but also restore the public’s trust in institutions.
The CCB’s mandate is clear: to ensure that public officials are transparent and accountable. It’s time for the Bureau to live up to its responsibility.
Smaller wins offer hope: verified asset reports triggering corrective action, officers disciplined for misrepresentation, and parliaments passing reforms to close loopholes. Each win chips away at cynicism’s scaffolding.
Trust is sustained by verification’s fidelity, not declaration’s beauty. The nation deserves a system where declarations match verification step by step, ensuring public office isn’t a cache of private gain but a custodian of collective good. Let us call for reform that makes verification as public and unwavering as declarations.
Every declared asset should be a pledge tested, not a mural weathering scrutiny. When verification catches up with declaration, the Code of Conduct Bureau will stop being a paradox, and the nation will witness integrity as the main event. The clock is ticking.
*Tony Edemenaha, a poet and social commentator, writes from Asaba.
