The Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, has come under intense scrutiny following the Senate’s decision to rescind its July 9, 2026 passage of the Proceeds of Crime (Recovery and Management) (Amendment) Bill, 2026, which sought to establish a standalone agency for the recovery and management of proceeds of crime.
The reversal has triggered allegations that Akpabio may have influenced Senate Leader Michael Opeyemi Bamidele to move the motion that overturned the legislation, with sources alleging that the move was aimed at frustrating the creation of the proposed agency.
The Bill, sponsored by Senator Idiat Adebule, representing Lagos West, had already passed through first and second readings, committee scrutiny, a public hearing, consideration by the Committee of the Whole, approval of all 51 clauses and third reading before the Senate reversed its earlier decision.
Bamidele, representing Ekiti Central, subsequently moved the motion seeking the rescission of the Senate’s July 9 passage.
Sources familiar with the development alleged that the move was orchestrated by Akpabio to frustrate the establishment of the agency.
“The bill had gone through all the processes involved to ensure establishment of the agency, in fact, the whole Senate approved it. It went through first reading, second reading, third reading, even the committee on legal matters and judiciary examined it, just for the Senate leader to want to frustrate the efforts by quickly packaging a rescission bill,” one source alleged.
The Senate’s rescission effectively overturned the July 9 approval, meaning the proposed agency no longer has the legislative passage it secured on that date.
The Bill would therefore have to return to the legislative process and be reconsidered and passed again before the proposed agency can proceed on the basis of the legislation.
The development is particularly significant because the proposed agency was not introduced at the final stage of the legislative process. Its establishment was the central objective of a Bill that had already undergone extensive committee scrutiny and stakeholder engagement.
The Senate Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters had recommended the establishment of a standalone Proceeds of Crime (Recovery and Management) Agency to replace an existing framework under which asset recovery and management responsibilities are dispersed across at least 18 separate agency-based directorates.
According to the committee’s report, the Bill sought to transform the existing structure under the Proceeds of Crime (Recovery and Management) Act, 2022, into a single institution with corporate legal personality, perpetual succession and a centralised mandate for the recovery, preservation and disposal of properties reasonably suspected to have been derived from unlawful activities.
The committee’s recommendation followed a public hearing held on February 26, 2026, at the National Assembly Complex in Abuja.
The committee had advertised the Bill in national newspapers and received memoranda from 22 organisations and individuals, including law enforcement and regulatory institutions, professional organisations and civil society groups.
Among those that submitted memoranda were the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission, National Drug Law Enforcement Agency, Department of State Services, Code of Conduct Bureau, National Human Rights Commission, Nigerian Bar Association and Transparency International Nigeria.
Other organisations included the Nigerian Law Reform Commission, Policy and Legal Advocacy Centre, Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project and Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre.
The committee subsequently considered the memoranda and evidence presented at the public hearing before arriving at its findings and recommendations.
The controversy has been heightened by Bamidele’s own role in the earlier consideration of the Bill.
Documents seen in connection with the legislative process show that Bamidele, who later sponsored the motion seeking to rescind the Senate’s July 9 passage, was himself a member of the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters that scrutinised the Bill and recommended the establishment of the agency.
The committee’s endorsement page lists “Senator Michael Opeyemi Bamidele, CON” as a member alongside the committee chairman, Senator Adegbonmire Adeniyi Ayodele, SAN, and other members.
His membership of the committee means he was part of the legislative body that considered the Bill before its report was presented to the Senate for consideration and passage.
A source questioned why Bamidele did not oppose the legislation at the committee stage or raise his concerns publicly before the Senate completed the legislative process.
The source said it was unusual for objections to emerge only after the Senate had already passed the Bill following extensive scrutiny.
“When exactly did the concerns arise? If there were serious problems with the bill, the committee stage and public hearing provided opportunities to raise them. Why wait until the Senate had completed the process?” the source asked.
On July 9, lawmakers considered the committee’s report clause by clause and approved all 51 clauses.
Clause 2 specifically provided for the creation of the proposed agency.
It stated: “There is established a body to be known as the Proceeds of Crime (Recovery and Management) Agency.”
The agency was to be established as a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal, with the power to sue and be sued in its corporate name.
It was also empowered to acquire, hold and dispose of movable and immovable property for the purpose of carrying out its statutory functions.
Its headquarters was designated to be in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, with powers to establish zonal offices in any state of the federation where necessary.
The proposed legislation further outlined the agency’s objectives, including providing an effective legal and institutional framework for the recovery and management of proceeds of crime in accordance with due process and the rule of law.
It also provided for the restraint, seizure, confiscation and forfeiture of property derived from unlawful activities and instrumentalities used or intended to be used in committing offences.
Another major provision was the introduction of a non-conviction-based procedure for the recovery of proceeds of crime.
The Bill also sought to strengthen criminal confiscation procedures by ensuring that the total benefit derived from a person’s criminal activity is calculated and an equivalent amount, where recoverable, confiscated on behalf of the Federal Government.
The proposed agency would have responsibility for managing recovered assets and properties and facilitating collaboration among relevant organisations involved in tracing and forfeiting properties reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activity.
The official July 9 proceedings showed that the Bill had received approval at multiple stages.
At the conclusion of the clause-by-clause consideration, the President of the Senate reported that the Committee of the Whole had considered the report of the Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters Committee and approved “Clauses 1-51 As Recommended.”
The Senate subsequently approved the report of the Committee of the Whole.
Bamidele, who later moved the motion to rescind the passage, had himself moved that the Bill be read for the third time before the motion for its passage was put to the Senate and agreed to.
The official record thereafter stated: “Bill accordingly Read the Third Time and Passed.”
The passage followed the earlier adoption of the committee’s recommendation for the establishment of the agency.
The legislative journey of the Bill had begun earlier, with the Senate considering its general principles on November 13, 2025, before referring it to the Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters Committee for further legislative action.
At the public hearing, the committee chairman, Senator Adegbonmire Adeniyi Ayodele, SAN, said the committee approached the exercise with an open mind and was committed to receiving different perspectives before reaching a considered legislative position.
Senator Mohammed Tahir Monguno, who represented the Senate President at the opening of the hearing, described the management of proceeds of crime as a critical issue in Nigeria’s anti-corruption architecture.
He commended the committee for subjecting the Bill to broad stakeholder engagement and described the proposed amendment as a “bold legislative step” towards addressing longstanding structural inefficiencies in asset recovery and management.
Despite the July 9 passage, Bamidele subsequently sponsored a motion seeking to rescind the Senate’s decision.
The motion expressly acknowledged the earlier passage, stating that the Senate “recalls that the Proceeds of Crime Act (Amendment) Bill, 2026 was considered and passed by the Senate at its plenary held on Thursday, 9th July, 2026.”
It then stated that after the passage, “certain substantive drafting, legal and policy issues requiring further legislative scrutiny and refinement were identified.”
According to the motion, those issues were considered fundamental to effective implementation and, if left unresolved, could “undermine the objectives of the Bill and create unintended legal and operational consequences.”
The motion argued that revisiting the Bill was in the “overriding public interest” and consistent with the Senate’s commitment to enacting sound, coherent and implementable legislation.
However, sources have questioned why the alleged concerns were not sufficient to prevent the Bill from being passed after it had undergone the extensive legislative process.
“What exactly are they scared of? The overriding public interest could have stopped the bill from being passed but it went through all stages and suddenly they now came with some excuses to wield their power,” another source alleged.
The motion presented by Bamidele further stated that rescinding the earlier decision would allow the chamber to reconsider the affected provisions and ensure that the legislation conforms with international best practices in asset recovery and proceeds of crime management, as well as Nigeria’s constitutional and legal framework.
Relying on Orders 1(b) and 52(6) of the Senate Standing Orders, 2023, as amended, the motion resolved to rescind the Senate’s July 9 decision on the passage of the Proceeds of Crime Bill to allow for refinement and further scrutiny.
However, documents seen in connection with the process and public statements subsequently made by the Senate did not reveal the specific legal, drafting or policy problems identified in the Bill.
Instead, the reasons publicly advanced focused broadly on legal, policy and public-interest concerns.
The absence of detailed public explanations has further fuelled questions surrounding the circumstances of the rescission and allegations concerning Akpabio’s alleged role.
The proposed agency was intended to provide a centralised framework for asset recovery, non-conviction-based forfeiture, confiscation and management of properties forfeited to the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Its establishment would also have replaced the fragmented system under which responsibilities for recovered assets are spread across several government institutions.
Sources described the rescission as a major setback to efforts to establish a centralised system for managing recovered assets in Nigeria.
“You see a case where assets are seized and suddenly you can’t get to know how they are managed. One would have expected the Senate President Akpabio and Senate Leader Bamidele to be eager to get the agency working, but that’s not the case,” another source alleged.
Earlier in July, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Chairman, Ola Olukoyede, had described the Proceeds of Crime legislation as a laudable move in the fight against corruption.
The Senate’s decision to reverse its earlier approval has now left the proposed agency without the legislative passage it secured on July 9.
The Bill must therefore be reconsidered and passed again if the proposed agency is to be established under the framework.
When the spokesperson for Senate President Godswill Akpabio, Eseme Eyiboh, was contacted, he declined to comment on the allegations.
Eyiboh said the issue was one “bothering on the Nigerian Senate” and that he could not speak on the allegations against his principal.
When specifically asked to respond to the allegation that Akpabio influenced Bamidele’s decision to move the rescission motion in order to frustrate the establishment of the agency, Eyiboh did not respond as of the time of filing this report.
The controversy has consequently placed Akpabio at the centre of questions over the Senate’s handling of a Bill that had already passed through extensive scrutiny, stakeholder engagement, clause-by-clause consideration and third reading before being dramatically overturned.
For critics, the central question remains why a legislation approved by the Senate after such an extensive process was suddenly sent back to the drawing board and why the specific problems allegedly discovered after its passage have not been publicly detailed.
The allegations against Akpabio and Bamidele remain allegations, and neither senator has publicly confirmed that the rescission was motivated by an attempt to frustrate the proposed agency.