CAN JUSTICE SURVIVE WHERE NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS HAVE FAILED?

The international justice system could be of help, contends SONNY IROCHE

For decades, Nigeria has waged a rhetorical war against corruption. Yet, despite countless investigations, commissions, arrests, and headlines, the country continues to struggle with the successful prosecution of senior political office holders accused of grand corruption. From trial courts to appellate levels, cases routinely collapse, are endlessly delayed, or end in outcomes that leave citizens deeply dissatisfied.

This persistent failure raises an uncomfortable but increasingly unavoidable question: if domestic justice systems fail, can international justice offer an alternative path to accountability?

Is There an International Court That Can Try Former Political Leaders?

There is no single global anti-corruption court with universal jurisdiction over financial crimes. The International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutes genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression, not corruption¹. Similarly, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) adjudicates disputes between states, not individuals².

This legal reality often surprises citizens who assume “international justice” automatically applies to corruption. It does not, at least not directly.

Where International Law Actually Bites;

International accountability for corruption operates through extraterritorial enforcement, asset-recovery regimes, and targeted sanctions, especially in jurisdictions where illicit funds are hidden.

The most important framework is the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), ratified by Nigeria and over 180 countries³. UNCAC obliges states to:

• Criminalise corruption, cooperate across borders, trace, freeze, confiscate, and repatriate stolen assets.

Crucially, UNCAC allows foreign jurisdictions to act when domestic systems are unwilling or unable.

Nigeria’s anti-corruption record is marked by high-profile cases that stalled, collapsed, or were overturned:

• Protracted trials lasting 10–15 years without conclusion; convictions overturned on technical grounds, not findings of innocence;

plea bargains resulting in minimal restitution relative to alleged losses; and cases dismissed for lack of diligent prosecution

A notable example is the long trail of corruption prosecutions involving former governors and senior officials, many of which ended without custodial sentences despite years of litigation.

Perhaps most emblematic is the Abacha loot, where billions of dollars stolen during military rule were recovered not through Nigerian courts, but through Swiss, US, and European cooperation.

Civil society organisations (CSOs), investigative journalists, and diaspora groups cannot prosecute individuals directly, but they can activate international legal processes.

Where stolen funds pass through foreign banks, CSOs can petition prosecutors under:

• US anti-money-laundering laws,

• UK Proceeds of Crime Act,

• Swiss criminal forfeiture statutes.

Foreign authorities often succeed because they focus on financial trails, not political power.

Independent forensic investigations have repeatedly enabled: Freezing of assets abroad, mutual legal assistance requests,

repatriation agreements with conditions

Nigeria’s asset recoveries from Switzerland, Jersey, and the United States are evidence that international systems respond to credible documentation.

Targeted Sanctions and Visa Bans

Western governments increasingly use Magnitsky-style sanctions, which do not require criminal convictions, only credible evidence.

The US Global Magnitsky Act empowers the executive to impose travel bans and asset freezes on foreign officials implicated in grand corruption or human rights abuses.

The United States Factor: External Pressure as a tool. The United States has repeatedly applied anti-corruption sanctions globally, Eastern Europe, Latin America, Asia, and Africa, across administrations of both parties.

Under Donald Trump, the US expanded the use of financial sanctions and extraterritorial enforcement, including aggressive pursuit of illicit financial flows.

While critics point to alleged personal controversies, international law does not require moral purity from enforcing states. History demonstrates that justice often advances through imperfect instruments, a principle echoed across faith traditions.

Corruption is not merely a moral failing; it is a systemic development crisis. The World Bank estimates that corruption costs developing countries trillions of dollars annually, undermining healthcare, education, and infrastructure.

When domestic accountability collapses, international pressure becomes a last resort, not an act of disloyalty. Many countries, from Brazil to Malaysia, have relied on foreign jurisdictions to unlock stalled accountability processes.

The solution is not to abandon Nigeria’s courts, but to complement them by:

• Strengthening civil society coalitions,

professionalising evidence gathering,

partnering with international prosecutors,

and leveraging financial intelligence and compliance systems

International mechanisms should act as pressure valves, removing the comfort of impunity while domestic reform catches up.

There may be no single international court dedicated to prosecuting corrupt former leaders. But through foreign courts, sanctions regimes, asset-recovery frameworks, and global financial compliance, accountability is no longer confined by borders.

When justice is delayed or denied at home, citizens are not powerless. Money leaves trails, institutions leave records, and history eventually closes its accounts.

The remaining question is whether civil society has the resolve to follow those trails to their end.

Iroche is a Finance Executive and Artificial Intelligence Researcher