-->

Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC) seeks review of financial penalties

Prof. Itse Sagay (SAN)

The Presidential Advisory Committee against Corruption (PACAC) has called for a review of some provisions in criminal laws that provide the option of fine as penalties for economic crimes. The committee, headed by eminent professor of law, Itse Sagay (SAN), made this recommendation in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Corruption and Other Related Economic Offences, produced by Presidential Advisory Committee against Corruption (PACAC).

Some laws, such as the Money Laundering Act, have provisions for options of fine, which are sometimes not commensurate with the offence. For instance, a former director of the Police Pension Board, Yakubu Yusuf, who allegedly stole N32.8 billion, was sentenced two years imprisonment with an option of N750, 000 fine, which he paid.

According to the Guidelines produced by the Presidential Advisory Committee against Corruption (PACAC): “Although imprisonment is a serious punitive measure for any crime, criminological studies have shown that the most effective punishment for any economic crime including corruption that involves direct or indirect financial gain to the offender or any other person, is punishment that strikes at the motivation for the offence, which is financial gain.

“Further, imprisonment comes with serious costs and even though it may be widely regarded as the penalty that sends a sufficiently strong enough deterrent signal to the society about a crime, the fine is no less effective when it is rigorously applied”.

“Against this backdrop, it is important to ensure that the laws creating the relevant offences adequately provide for financial penalties that are commensurate to the level of offences. Unfortunately, this is not the case presently. The amounts imposed by legislation as fines for offences and the scheme of monetary jurisdiction for the lower courts make it difficult for the courts to adequately sentence using the fine. The inadequate provisions relating to other ancillary financial measures limit the prospect for effectively using these measures.”

The Guideline further states that, a sentence must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence, which is determinable by (a) its nature; (b) quantum of punishment specified by the legislature for the offence; (c) degree of culpability of the offender; and (d) harm occasioned. The guidelines provide an eight-step matrix of the sentencing process. The first step is determining the offence category in terms of high, medium or lesser culpability. “Harm is assessed in relation to any impact caused by the offending (whether to identifiable victims or in a wider context) and the actual or intended gain to the offender,” it says.

Our website contains a wealth of free, reliable legal information. Here, you'll find information about starting and legally maintaining a company, partnership, or sole proprietorship, as well as information about franchises, general business law and taxation. For more on business law, see the links on http://www.legalemperors.com.
© Onyekachi Duru Esq and www.legalemperors.com, 2016 (All Rights Reserved). Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excepts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Onyekachi Duru Esq and www.legalemperors.com with appropriate and specific directions to the original content.
The post you have just read and indeed all other posts emanating from http://www.legalemperors.com contains general legal information and does not contain legal advice. http://www.legalemperors.com is not a law firm or a substitute for a lawyer or law firm. The law is complex and changes often. 
For Legal Advice, please ask a Lawyer



Share this: