Russia has developed a comprehensive anti-corruption system that combines the punishment of offenders with measures aimed at preventing the underlying causes of corruption, the Chargé d’Affaires of the Russian Embassy in Nigeria, Mr Igor Ivannikov, has said.
Ivannikov spoke on Tuesday in Abuja while delivering a lecture at the 4th Anti-Corruption Academy of Nigeria (ACAN) International Diplomatic Dialogue, themed, “Development of Anti-Corruption Strategies and Policies: The Russian National Experience.”
The dialogue, organised by ACAN, the research and training arm of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), is designed to facilitate the exchange of international experiences in combating corruption.
Ivannikov, who is also the Minister Counsellor at the Russian Embassy, said corruption undermined fair competition, weakened public administration and eroded citizens’ trust in government institutions.
“Corruption is a major problem for any state. It leads to inefficient use of resources, undermines the principles of fair competition, reduces the quality of public administration, and undermines citizens’ trust in government institutions.
“Therefore, modern policy generally combines two areas: suppressing offences that have already been committed and addressing their underlying causes.
“Over a few decades, Russia has developed a comprehensive anti-corruption system.
“Its evolution can be divided into three stages: the establishment of the first control mechanisms in the 1990s, the creation of a comprehensive legal framework in the late 2000s, and the subsequent improvement of preventive measures and international cooperation.”
Giving an overview of Russia’s anti-corruption framework, the envoy said the country’s approach emphasised prevention alongside punishment, combining legal, administrative, financial, technological and educational measures.
He said digitalisation and risk-based controls had proved effective in combating corruption but stressed that they must be complemented by strong oversight and accountability to ensure compliance and strengthen anti-corruption measures.
According to him, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia was confronted with the need to rebuild its public service and oversight institutions, while the transition to a market economy created new opportunities for abuse.
Ivannikov said Presidential Decree No. 361 of 1992, titled “On Combating Corruption in the Public Service,” was among the country’s earliest legal instruments specifically addressing corruption.
He said the decree prohibited public officials from engaging in entrepreneurial activities and required senior public-service appointees to declare their income, property and bank deposits.
He identified the adoption of Federal Law No. 273, “On Combating Corruption,” in 2008 as a major turning point in Russia’s anti-corruption efforts.
According to him, the law consolidated preventive measures and established requirements for public officials, including rules for managing conflicts of interest and control mechanisms designed to strengthen accountability within public institutions.
On enforcement, Ivannikov said Russian practice provided a clear division of responsibilities among law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies.
He said the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Federal Security Service were responsible for detecting offences, while investigations were handled by the Investigative Committee.
The Prosecutor’s Office, he added, exercised supervisory functions and represented the state in court.
The envoy said corruption-related offences were defined under the Criminal Code, including accepting a bribe under Article 290, giving a bribe under Article 291 and mediation in bribery under Article 291.1.
Other offences, he said, included abuse of official powers under Article 285 and commercial bribery under Article 204, with liability determined partly by the amount involved.
Ivannikov said Russian investigators also traced the movement of funds and property acquired with illicit proceeds, adding that such assets could be frozen and transferred to state ownership where the legal requirements were met.
He said international legal assistance mechanisms were deployed where illicit assets were located abroad, enabling authorities to trace, freeze and recover proceeds of corruption.
On preventive measures, Ivannikov said Russia relied on declarations of income and property, expenditure monitoring and mechanisms for identifying unexplained wealth and conflicts of interest.
He cited a 2026 case in the Republic of Buryatia in which prosecutors recovered more than RUB4 million, approximately N60 million, allegedly transferred to a former minister.
He said other preventive mechanisms included conflict-of-interest controls, anti-corruption reviews of regulatory instruments and the digitalisation of public procurement through the Unified Information System.
The diplomat added that every government institution in Russia had an anti-corruption department responsible for monitoring compliance, appointing officials responsible for anti-corruption measures and implementing codes of ethics.
On prospects for cooperation between Nigeria and Russia, Ivannikov said the two countries already had national anti-corruption systems and therefore did not need parallel structures.
Rather, he said, both countries could deepen professional collaboration in areas such as financial investigations, asset recovery, monitoring officials’ income and procurement risk assessment.
He said Russia had developed a practical approach to international asset recovery through the Prosecutor General’s Office, providing a framework for cooperation with other jurisdictions.
According to him, a legal basis for cooperation already existed, noting that Nigeria and Russia signed a Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters in 2018, which had been ratified by Russia.
He identified the University of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation, Rosfinmonitoring, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and other specialised educational institutions as potential partners for professional collaboration.
In his welcome address, the ICPC Chairman, Dr Musa Aliyu, SAN, said Nigeria was seeking to learn from Russia’s anti-corruption strategies and policies in order to strengthen its own efforts.
Aliyu described Russia as a longstanding friend of Nigeria, noting that bilateral relations between the two countries had developed over the years across several sectors.
He said agreements covering air services, economic, scientific and technical cooperation, trade and other areas had been concluded under the Nigeria-Russia bilateral relationship.
The ICPC chairman said the commission had earlier hosted three successful Diplomatic Dialogues with Kenya, Indonesia and China in June and August to facilitate the exchange of experiences on combating corruption.
He said as Nigeria continued to strengthen its anti-corruption efforts, there was considerable value in learning from comparative international experiences and identifying innovative approaches that could be adapted to local realities.
“This dialogue reflects the commitment of ICPC and ACAN to fostering international cooperation and promoting evidence-based approaches to corruption prevention,” he said.
Aliyu commended the Provost of ACAN, Prof. Sheriff Ibrahim, and his team for conceptualising the initiative, describing the Academy as an important institution for research, training and capacity development in the fight against corruption.
In his remarks, the ACAN Provost, Prof. Sheriff Ibrahim, provided historical and contextual perspectives on Russia’s engagement with corruption and institutional reform, highlighting developments in the country’s anti-corruption framework.
Ibrahim referenced the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution as an early historical development linked to opposition to corruption and inefficiency within the Tsarist regime, connecting those developments with subsequent institutional reforms.
He also highlighted Russia’s role in the establishment of the International Anti-Corruption Academy (IACA), as well as its contributions to international anti-corruption cooperation and capacity development.
Ibrahim said Russia had a long historical experience of confronting corruption and institutional inefficiency, adding that its contemporary anti-corruption legal and institutional framework was comprehensive and multi-layered.
