IGP Egbetokun Creates Police Anti-Money Laundering Units to Combat Financial Crimes: Why the NPF Should Focus on Core Public Safety
The recent establishment of anti-money laundering units within the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) is a decision that deserves attention, though not for the reasons some might think. On the surface, it seems like a proactive step in addressing financial crimes, particularly money laundering, that have become an ever-growing concern in today’s world. Financial crimes like money laundering can undermine the stability of the nation’s economy, fuel terrorism, and finance organized crime. Therefore, the NPF's decision to dive into this domain, creating specialized units to combat these issues, appears to reflect a shift toward a more modernized police force capable of responding to contemporary challenges. However, the core issue here is not whether financial crimes should be combated, but whether the NPF is stretching itself too thin by expanding into a territory already well-managed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
While combating financial crimes is undeniably important, the NPF faces an already overwhelming range of responsibilities, many of which have a far more immediate and visible impact on public safety. The question arises: does the NPF, with its existing limited resources, really have the capacity to take on this additional burden, especially when the EFCC has already demonstrated its competence in handling such matters? In other words, does the NPF’s expansion into anti-money laundering really add value, or is it simply a distraction from its core mission?
The Pressing Need for Focus on Immediate and Violent Crimes
Let’s be clear: while financial crimes are a long-term threat, violent crimes—kidnapping, armed robbery, domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking—are taking a toll on Nigerians every day. The priority should be maintaining safety and public order, the very mandate that the NPF was established to fulfill. Kidnapping, for instance, has become one of the most dangerous and prevalent crimes in Nigeria. Criminal gangs have become adept at targeting affluent individuals, children, and families for ransom. The very fact that Nigeria has earned a reputation as a hotspot for kidnappers who operate with near impunity should be a wake-up call to the NPF. Yet, by introducing new anti-money laundering units, the NPF risks diluting its focus and resources, leaving critical violent crime investigations to languish.
Armed robberies continue to plague Nigerian citizens, often leaving them physically and psychologically scarred. With the frequency of armed robberies on the rise, the NPF should be prioritizing swift responses and preventive measures, not expanding into areas that are outside of its traditional role. The direct and severe impact of armed robbery is not something that can be sidelined for the sake of investigating financial crimes. The NPF, as the primary law enforcement agency, should be tackling these immediate threats head-on. Instead, it is now looking to take on a complex area already well-managed by the EFCC, which risks undermining the capacity of the NPF to handle high-priority crimes such as robbery.
Similarly, domestic violence and sexual violence, including rape and child abuse, remain an ongoing epidemic in Nigeria. Despite various laws aimed at protecting vulnerable individuals, these crimes often go unreported, and victims are left without justice. The NPF has the crucial responsibility to address these crimes, protect the most vulnerable members of society, and bring perpetrators to justice. The introduction of anti-money laundering units, while important in theory, risks diverting valuable resources and attention from these immediate threats. The lives of women, children, and families should take precedence over pursuing financial crimes that, while severe, don’t have the same direct and urgent impact on individuals and their communities.
Risk of Duplication and Overextension
What the NPF is effectively doing is duplicating the role already played by the EFCC. The EFCC has long been the agency tasked with investigating and prosecuting financial crimes, including money laundering, fraud, and embezzlement. It has the training, expertise, and infrastructure to effectively handle these complex cases. The EFCC’s focus has been on tackling corruption within the government, which is essential to the economic stability of the nation. This allows the NPF to focus on maintaining law and order in society. By introducing new anti-money laundering units, the NPF risks stepping on the toes of an agency already doing this work—and doing it well.
If both agencies are now chasing the same goal, resources will be split, leading to inefficiencies. The NPF is already under pressure to maintain public order, investigate violent crimes, and respond to urgent calls for help. Adding the responsibility of investigating financial crimes will likely stretch the NPF too thin. This could result in confusion, turf wars, and a lack of clarity in responsibilities between the NPF and EFCC. The ultimate consequence will be slower, less effective responses to both financial crimes and other urgent criminal activities.
The Growing Focus on State Policing
As the country moves closer to a system of state policing, it becomes even more clear that the NPF’s role should be better defined. With state policing gaining traction, states could assume greater control over their law enforcement agencies, focusing on crimes that are most pertinent to their regions. Under this system, the NPF should be restricted to its role as a federal force, handling crimes that affect federal properties, federal personnel, and larger national security threats, such as terrorism, large-scale fraud, and cross-border criminal activities. This would free up local law enforcement agencies to focus on issues like kidnapping, local robberies, and domestic violence—issues that require immediate attention and community-specific responses.
In this light, expanding the NPF’s scope to include anti-money laundering efforts seems to be a move backward, not forward. State police forces could handle local crimes, while the NPF’s focus remains on federal-level crimes. The EFCC, in turn, would continue to protect government funds, ensuring that financial corruption and crimes against public resources are tackled at the federal level, where they belong. The idea of state policing would allow for a more localized response, ensuring that each state has the autonomy to deal with issues that most directly affect its citizens, without federal forces being bogged down by tasks that could be more efficiently handled elsewhere.
The EFCC's Independent Role and Growing Effectiveness
The EFCC has made significant strides in the fight against financial crimes, particularly corruption and embezzlement. It has been instrumental in bringing corrupt officials to justice and holding individuals accountable for fraudulent activities. Over time, the EFCC has developed a strong track record and gained the public’s trust as the go-to agency for tackling financial crime. In fact, the EFCC’s ability to investigate complex financial schemes, unravel money laundering networks, and prosecute high-profile cases is unparalleled in Nigeria. The NPF’s attempt to set up similar units only raises doubts about the efficiency and necessity of such an expansion. Is this an effort to overstep the EFCC’s jurisdiction? Is there perhaps an element of professional jealousy at play here? The NPF, historically, has seen many of its officers in positions of leadership within the EFCC. Many have served in key roles within the anti-corruption agency, and over time, the EFCC has found its own place as an independent entity, free from the historical influence of the NPF. One wonders if the recent move by the NPF to create anti-money laundering units is a subtle, perhaps unconscious, attempt to reclaim some of that ground.
Could the NPF’s expanded role in financial crimes be driven by a desire to be seen in the same light as the EFCC, or is it a case of "we can do this too"? It seems almost as though the EFCC has, in a way, suggested that the NPF focus on its original mandate. Historically, police officers have served in the EFCC, but the agency’s success has allowed it to assert its independence and establish a clear, specialized mandate. The NPF, by setting up overlapping units, could be undermining this structure and, in the process, diminishing the very capacity of the force to handle local and violent crimes.
A Path Forward: Focus on Core Responsibilities
Rather than venturing into territory already claimed by the EFCC, the NPF should focus on its core responsibilities. The NPF's mission should be clear: safeguard public safety, protect citizens, and tackle violent crime. The fight against financial crimes is important but should not be at the expense of addressing the crimes that are affecting communities on a daily basis. The NPF must recognize that its primary duty is to serve and protect Nigerians, especially in the face of escalating violent crimes and rising public insecurity.
Instead of diluting its resources by duplicating the EFCC’s role, the NPF should strengthen its collaboration with the EFCC. Both agencies can work together to target criminal activities, but their functions should remain distinct. Financial crimes, especially those involving large sums of money and high-profile corruption, require specialized expertise, and the EFCC is well-equipped for this task. The NPF, on the other hand, must focus on the physical safety of citizens, dealing with kidnappers, robbers, traffickers, and violent criminals who pose a direct and immediate threat.
In conclusion, while the NPF’s effort to address financial crimes is not without merit, it should not come at the expense of its primary role as a public safety force. The country is dealing with serious security issues, and the NPF’s efforts must remain focused on these high-priority crimes. The expansion into anti-money laundering is redundant, inefficient, and potentially harmful to the NPF’s effectiveness in addressing crimes that demand immediate attention. Instead, the NPF should continue its collaboration with the EFCC, allowing both agencies to focus on their areas of expertise for a more secure and efficient law enforcement system in Nigeria.
Professor John Egbeazien Oshodi, born in Uromi, Edo State, Nigeria, is a Nigerian-American psychologist, educator, and author renowned for his expertise in cross-cultural psychology, forensic/clinical psychology, and social justice. He is the son of a father who served in the Nigeria Police Force for 37 years. Professor Oshodi has held teaching appointments at several institutions, including Florida Memorial University, Florida International University, Broward College, Nexus International University, and Nova Southeastern University. He played a key role in introducing state-of-the-art forensic psychology into Nigeria in 2011 through N.U.C. and Nasarawa State University, where he served in the Department of Psychology.
Professor Oshodi is a government consultant for forensic-clinical psychological services for both adults and children in the USA. He currently practices as a clinical and forensic psychologist. He holds virtual faculty roles at Walden University, Weldios University, and ISCOM University.
He has authored academic publications, including books, and written hundreds of public opinion pieces on African issues. His expertise lies in psycho-prescriptive writings on African institutional and governance challenges. Professor Oshodi is also the founder of the Psychoafricalysis theory in psychology, a pioneering contribution to the field. He is a former Secretary-General of the Nigeria Psychological Association (NPA). His work continues to inspire scholars, practitioners, and policymakers worldwide.