Nigeria’s public service is facing one of the most consequential moments in its post-independence history. Beneath the routines of governance – budget approvals, procurement announcements, policy circulars, and ministerial briefings – lies a deep institutional crisis that threatens accountability, economic stability, and public confidence in government. This crisis was laid bare a week ago when the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) released its Ethics and Integrity Compliance Scorecard (EICS) alongside the Anti-Corruption and Transparency Unit Effectiveness Index (AEI).
The findings were stark and unsettling. Not a single federal ministry, department, or agency achieved full compliance with established ethical and integrity standards. Of the 357 MDAs assessed nationwide, zero met the benchmark required to demonstrate robust institutional integrity. For a country that has spent decades proclaiming a commitment to anti-corruption reform, the report amounted to a sobering national verdict.
Chairman, ICPC, Dr Musa Adamu Aliyu, SAN
The EICS serves as a critical assessment tool for Ministries, Departments, and Agencies (MDAs), evaluating their adherence to ethical standards and mandates related to integrity. This system actively stimulates the initiation of internal anti-corruption campaigns, which are essential for refining both organisational systems and operational procedures. By fostering a culture of accountability, the EICS encourages MDAs to engage in peer benchmarking. This process motivates organisations to not only meet industry standards but to exceed them, thereby enhancing their competitive edge. Moreover, the insights gathered from the EICS are invaluable for government entities in crafting effective oversight policies that promote transparency and accountability.
For investors, the EICS provides critical reputational intelligence that is indispensable for forming partnerships in Nigeria – a country where public agencies handle vast financial resources, amounting to trillions of naira annually. Understanding the ethical standing and operational integrity of public entities becomes essential for making informed investment decisions.
Complementing the EICS is the Anti-Corruption and Integrity (AEI) framework, which delves deeper by focusing on the performance of Anti-Corruption and Transparency Units (ACTUs). These units operate as internal watchdogs within MDAs, and the AEI framework systematically quantifies and assesses their efficacy. Through this analysis, the AEI identifies structural, procedural, and functional weaknesses within these units. Standardised metrics facilitate a thorough analysis of trends across different sectors and allow for meaningful comparisons among peers, transforming anecdotal concerns into empirical, data-driven interventions aimed at enhancing transparency and curbing corruption.
Together, the EICS and AEI frameworks produce crucial data that reveal “statistical evidence of public systems and practices, including their strengths, failures, and vulnerabilities.” This data drives the need for precise and targeted actions from both MDAs and government authorities. The granularity of this information is particularly significant within Nigeria’s federal structure, where MDAs operate across vital sectors, including education, health, infrastructure, and defence. For instance, procurement lapses within a single agency could have a domino effect, leading to delays in national projects, escalating costs, and ultimately, the misallocation of public funds, thereby undermining public trust.
The ICPC is instrumental in enhancing accountability through the publication of annual reports that provide insights into the state of integrity among MDAs. It also issues recommendations aimed at bolstering compliance and addresses issues of non-compliance by escalating cases to the System Study and Review (SSR) or Corruption Risk Assessment (CRA) processes.
This dual-framework approach aligns with international best practices, paralleling compliance scorecard mechanisms used in the U.S. Federal Acquisition Regulation or assessments under the UK’s Public Sector Equality Duty. However, it is tailored specifically to navigate and address the distinct socio-cultural challenges present in Nigeria. By implementing these frameworks, Nigeria aims to reinforce its governance structures and foster a more transparent and accountable public sector.
Presenting the 2025 findings, ICPC Chairman Dr. Musa Adamu Aliyu, SAN, made it clear that the report was not about isolated wrongdoing or individual misconduct. Rather, it exposed systemic weaknesses that allow corruption to persist and accountability to fail. In his words, the results represented not merely procedural lapses but a breakdown of the institutional safeguards upon which effective governance depends.
The Ethics and Integrity Compliance Scorecard was first introduced in 2015 and fully institutionalised by 2019 as a preventive tool. Unlike traditional anti-corruption approaches that focus primarily on investigation and prosecution after wrongdoing has occurred, the EICS was designed to assess whether institutions possess the internal structures necessary to prevent corruption in the first place. It examines the presence and effectiveness of ethical codes, whistleblower mechanisms, financial controls, procurement safeguards, monitoring systems, and leadership accountability.
By 2025, the EICS had matured into a seven-year longitudinal dataset, allowing the ICPC to track patterns across the federal bureaucracy. What emerged from this extended analysis was not a picture of gradual improvement punctuated by setbacks, but one of entrenched institutional fragility. While a small number of MDAs showed marginal progress, the overall integrity architecture of the public service remained dangerously weak.
The scorecard results underscored this reality. Only 48 MDAs, representing just under 14 per cent of those assessed, achieved what was classified as substantial compliance. More than 38% fell into partial compliance, while approximately 41% recorded poor compliance. Twenty-three MDAs were deemed outright non-compliant, and 13 were categorised as high-risk non-responders for failing to meaningfully engage with the assessment process. In effect, more than nine out of every ten federal agencies operate below acceptable ethical standards.
Complementing the EICS was the Anti-Corruption and Transparency Unit Effectiveness Index (AEI), which assessed the performance of ACTUs—internal watchdogs established within MDAs by the ICPC to identify corruption risks, conduct system reviews, and promote ethical culture. The AEI findings were particularly troubling. Only about 12% of ACTUs were rated very effective, while more than half were classified as ineffective. Even more concerning was the fact that 89 MDAs had failed to establish ACTUs at all, despite statutory requirements.
The implications of this failure are profound. Without functioning internal oversight units, corruption risk assessments stagnate, system review recommendations go unimplemented, and institutional learning becomes impossible. In such environments, corruption ceases to be an aberration and instead becomes embedded within organisational routines.
To ensure the credibility of its findings, the ICPC adopted a rigorous methodology. Assessment teams were deployed across all 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory, conducting on-site evaluations of 357 MDAs. The process combined document reviews, staff interviews, and physical verification of systems and procedures. Findings were benchmarked against existing laws and regulations, including the Public Procurement Act of 2007, the Fiscal Responsibility Act, and public service rules.
Crucially, the ICPC avoided reliance on self-reporting alone, a common weakness in public sector audits. Instead, compliance claims were independently verified, reducing the risk of inflated scores. This methodological rigour lends significant weight to the conclusions drawn.
One of the most revealing aspects of the report was the extent to which basic ethical foundations were missing. Nearly half of the MDAs assessed failed to visibly display or communicate their mission statements, core values, or ethical commitments to staff. While this may appear superficial, organisational culture experts argue that shared values are the bedrock of ethical behaviour. When such values are absent or obscured, compliance becomes transactional and easily compromised.
Equally troubling was the absence of clear policies governing gifts, donations, and hospitality in more than 190 MDAs. These policies are essential in defining ethical boundaries between public officials and external actors. Their absence creates grey areas where undue influence can flourish and where misconduct becomes normalised rather than challenged.
Strategic planning and performance management were also weak. Over 100 MDAs operated without documented strategic plans, while 154 lacked monitoring and evaluation frameworks. Without clear objectives and performance metrics, public programmes proceed without accountability, and failures go uncorrected.
Financial management emerged as another major area of concern. The ICPC documented widespread failures in revenue remittance, advance retirement, and statutory reporting. Ninety-nine MDAs lacked advance expenditure guidelines, while many delayed or failed to retire advances altogether. More than a hundred MDAs did not submit mandatory financial reports to the Accountant-General, and several failed to remit internally generated revenue.
Auditing systems were frequently ignored. Some MDAs skipped internal audits entirely, while others failed to submit annual accounts to the Auditor-General or the National Assembly. These lapses create accountability blind spots where public funds can be mismanaged with minimal risk of detection.
Procurement proved to be the epicentre of vulnerability. Long regarded as Nigeria’s most corruption-prone government activity, procurement processes across MDAs were riddled with deficiencies. Dozens of agencies skipped needs assessments, failed to conduct mandatory market surveys, or operated without compliant procurement plans. Capacity gaps compounded these failures, with many procurement officers lacking training from the Bureau of Public Procurement.
At least 50 MDAs were already under ICPC investigation for procurement-related irregularities at the time of assessment. The consequences of these failures are visible nationwide in the form of inflated contract costs, abandoned projects, and substandard infrastructure—costs ultimately borne by citizens.
Beyond finance and procurement, the bureaucratic backbone itself showed signs of decay. Some MDAs lacked legally established instruments or operational manuals. Staff appraisals were skipped, leading to irregular promotions that undermine meritocracy and morale. Technology adoption lagged badly, with many agencies still relying on manual record-keeping systems vulnerable to manipulation. Others maintained outdated or non-functional websites, limiting public access to information and undermining transparency commitments.
Training infrastructure was similarly weak. Many MDAs had no training plans, skipped ethics training altogether, or relied on unaccredited training providers. Without continuous capacity building, ethical reform efforts cannot be sustained.
For ordinary Nigerians, these failures are not abstract. They manifest in everyday experiences: poorly constructed roads, underfunded schools and hospitals, delayed salaries, and abandoned public projects. Over time, these experiences erode trust in government and weaken the social contract between citizens and the state.
The economic implications are equally significant. Weak revenue remittance and procurement inefficiencies constrain fiscal space, limiting the government’s ability to invest in development priorities. For investors, both domestic and international, governance metrics increasingly influence decisions. In an era of global capital mobility, weak transparency and accountability raise red flags, diverting investment to more predictable environments.
In response to the findings, the ICPC outlined a corrective roadmap anchored on policy domestication, revitalisation of ACTUs, digital procurement and auditing systems, stronger enforcement mechanisms, and deeper collaboration with media and civil society. Sector-specific reforms were proposed for revenue-generating agencies, procurement-intensive institutions, service-delivery MDAs, and regulators.
Ultimately, the 2025 EICS and AEI reports mark a turning point in Nigeria’s anti-corruption discourse. They shift the conversation from anecdote to evidence, from moral outrage to institutional diagnosis. They also pose a stark challenge. A public sector in which none of 357 federal institutions meet basic integrity standards is unsustainable for a country with Nigeria’s ambitions.
As the nation moves into 2026, the central question is no longer whether the problem is known. It is whether there is sufficient political will to confront it. Whether this report becomes another forgotten document or the catalyst for genuine reform will shape not only the future of Nigeria’s public service but the credibility of the Nigerian state itself. The ICPC, for its part, is committed to exploring every strategy in the fight against corruption.