EFCC CALLS ON RELIGIOUS LEADERS, TRADITIONAL RULERS AND COMMUNITIES TO STRENGTHEN WATCH AGAINST CORRUPTION
By Iroyin Yoruba Television
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission has called on religious leaders, traditional rulers and communities across Nigeria to become more active in monitoring public resources and speaking out when government funds intended for communities are allegedly diverted or misused.
The call was made by EFCC Chairman Ola Olukoyede on Friday, October 2, 2026, during the inauguration of the commission's new Zonal Directorate in Awka, Anambra State.
Olukoyede urged Nigerians to develop what he described as a conscious watch against financial crimes, stressing that the responsibility for confronting corruption should not rest solely with government enforcement agencies.
He said communities should pay attention to projects and programmes funded with public money and ask questions when approved projects are abandoned despite the release of funds.
The message places community participation at the centre of the EFCC's broader preventive approach to corruption.
Rather than viewing corruption exclusively as an issue for investigators, prosecutors and government institutions, the commission is encouraging citizens and community leaders to pay attention to how public resources are used around them.
The approach is based on the idea that residents are often in a position to see whether government-funded projects are actually being delivered.
A road constructed with public funds, a healthcare facility approved for a community, a school project or another government programme is ultimately visible to the people who live in the area.
When a project is approved and money is released but the project does not appear to progress, community members may be among the first people able to raise questions.
Olukoyede's appeal therefore focuses on the connection between financial accountability and ordinary community life.
Public funds are not abstract figures.
They are intended to finance services and projects that affect people's daily lives.
When resources are properly managed, communities can benefit from infrastructure, healthcare, education, employment programmes and other public services.
When resources are diverted, the intended beneficiaries may be left without the service or infrastructure for which government funding was provided.
The EFCC chairman's message calls on communities to pay attention to that difference.
He urged Nigerians not to look away when public resources are allegedly being diverted.
The commission's position is that citizens can contribute to anti-corruption efforts by asking questions and reporting suspected wrongdoing through appropriate channels.
This does not mean that residents should investigate criminal cases themselves.
Financial investigations require trained personnel, documentary evidence and lawful investigative procedures.
The role of citizens is instead to provide information and draw attention to situations that may require official examination.
Religious leaders and traditional rulers can play a particular role because they often have established relationships with large sections of their communities.
Churches, mosques, traditional institutions and community organisations frequently interact with residents on a regular basis.
They can therefore help communicate messages about integrity, responsible citizenship and the need to protect public resources.
Olukoyede specifically called on religious and traditional leaders to support the fight against corruption.
His appeal reflects the influence these institutions can have beyond formal government structures.
Religious leaders can encourage their congregations to reject fraudulent practices and report financial misconduct.
Traditional rulers can encourage residents to cooperate with lawful institutions and draw attention to problems affecting their communities.
Community organisations can monitor public projects and communicate concerns to government agencies.
The approach does not replace the legal responsibilities of anti-corruption agencies.
The EFCC remains responsible for investigating economic and financial crimes within its statutory mandate.
The Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission also has responsibilities relating to corruption prevention and enforcement.
Auditors, legislative oversight bodies, procurement institutions and internal control departments have their own roles.
Community monitoring can complement these formal mechanisms by providing information from the people who directly experience public projects and services.
The emphasis on communities also reflects the practical difficulties faced by national agencies attempting to monitor public spending across a country as large as Nigeria.
Government projects are spread across thousands of communities.
A central agency cannot physically observe every project at every stage.
Residents, however, are already present in the locations where many of those projects are supposed to be implemented.
Their observations can therefore provide useful information.
For example, if a community is informed that funding has been released for a public facility but construction stops after a limited amount of work, residents may be able to report the situation.
The information can then be assessed by the appropriate authority.
Such a report does not automatically prove corruption.
There may be legitimate reasons for delays, including contractual disputes, changes in project scope, technical problems or additional approvals.
This is why the role of a community monitor should be to report facts rather than make unsupported accusations.
Investigators can then determine whether the circumstances indicate wrongdoing.
The EFCC's appeal therefore depends on responsible reporting.
Citizens need to distinguish between a project that is delayed and one where there is evidence of financial misconduct.
A delay may arise from administrative or technical reasons.
An alleged diversion of funds, falsification of records or fraudulent payment is a different matter requiring investigation.
Accurate information can help enforcement agencies focus their resources.
Unverified accusations, on the other hand, can damage reputations and create unnecessary disputes.
The commission's message therefore has implications for how communities approach suspected corruption.
Citizens should document what they can legitimately observe, retain relevant public information and use recognised reporting channels.
They should not attempt to obtain confidential financial information unlawfully or confront people they suspect of wrongdoing.
The proper response to suspected corruption is to report the matter to competent authorities.
The EFCC provides channels through which complaints and information can be submitted.
The commission can then determine whether the information falls within its mandate and whether further action is required.
The new community-focused approach also raises the importance of transparency in public projects.
For residents to monitor government-funded programmes effectively, they need access to basic information about those programmes.
Information such as the name of a project, its purpose, responsible agency, approved budget, contractor and expected completion period can make monitoring more meaningful.
Without basic information, residents may know that a project exists but have difficulty determining whether the work being done corresponds to what was approved.
Public institutions can therefore support community monitoring by making relevant project information accessible.
Transparency can make it easier for citizens to understand how public money is supposed to be used.
It can also reduce confusion when projects experience delays or changes.
If the reasons for a delay are communicated publicly, communities can distinguish between an explained administrative problem and a situation that may warrant further scrutiny.
The EFCC's message therefore intersects with broader questions about public-sector transparency.
Corruption prevention does not depend only on arrests.
It can also involve systems that make financial information easier to track and public spending easier to scrutinise.
The commission has increasingly emphasised prevention as part of its anti-corruption strategy.
Earlier on Friday, the EFCC also disclosed that it had received approval to monitor releases from the Federation Account Allocation Committee to state and local governments.
That initiative places greater attention on public-resource flows after allocations are made.
The community-watch message complements that approach from the other direction.
While the EFCC can examine financial information at institutional level, citizens can observe what happens to projects and services at community level.
Together, these approaches could provide different forms of information for accountability.
The two approaches should nevertheless operate within established legal procedures.
Financial monitoring and community reporting must respect constitutional rights, due process and the responsibilities of elected and appointed government officials.
The existence of a public complaint does not establish guilt.
An allegation must be investigated and supported by evidence before criminal responsibility can be established.
That principle is particularly important in anti-corruption reporting because allegations involving public officials or contractors can have significant reputational consequences.
The EFCC's call for communities to speak up should therefore be accompanied by responsible use of information.
Citizens should report genuine concerns rather than use anti-corruption complaints as instruments for personal disputes.
The same applies to religious and traditional leaders.
Their influence can be valuable when used to encourage lawful reporting and public accountability.
It can become problematic if allegations are made publicly without sufficient evidence.
The objective should be to strengthen accountability rather than create unverified accusations.
Olukoyede also urged Nigerians to be cautious about fraudulent investment schemes.
This broadens the message beyond government corruption to financial fraud affecting individuals and communities.
Investment scams can take many forms, including promises of unusually high returns, false claims about investment opportunities and schemes that depend on recruiting new participants.
The EFCC has a mandate covering various forms of economic and financial crime, including fraud.
The chairman's appeal therefore asks citizens to take greater responsibility for protecting themselves and their communities from financial misconduct.
Public awareness can be an important preventive tool.
People who understand the warning signs of fraudulent schemes may be less likely to surrender money to criminals.
Religious and community leaders can also help spread information about financial scams because they have access to large audiences.
This is particularly relevant in communities where investment opportunities may be promoted through informal networks.
A trusted community figure can encourage residents to verify claims before transferring money or entering financial arrangements.
However, financial decisions should ultimately be based on proper verification and relevant regulatory information rather than simply on endorsements from community leaders.
The anti-corruption campaign therefore extends into financial literacy.
People need to understand how to verify investment companies, recognise suspicious promises and report suspected fraud.
This can reduce the opportunities available to fraudsters.
The EFCC's message also connects corruption to the broader development of communities.
When public resources are lost, governments have fewer resources available for legitimate programmes.
A missing road project, an incomplete hospital or an abandoned school can represent more than an unfinished structure.
It can mean that residents do not receive the service that public money was intended to provide.
That is why the commission is encouraging communities to take an interest in government projects.
The objective is not simply to catch individuals.
It is also to ensure that public resources produce public value.
Community oversight can be particularly relevant at the local-government level.
Local governments operate closest to many communities, but residents may not always have detailed information about their budgets or projects.
Making that information accessible can improve public participation.
Citizens can then ask more precise questions.
For example, instead of simply asking why a project has not been completed, residents could ask whether the project was budgeted, whether a contract was awarded, how much was approved and what completion date was specified.
Specific questions can make accountability more effective.
Government officials can also respond with information that explains the status of a project.
Such communication can prevent misunderstandings and help identify genuine problems.
The role of the media is also relevant.
Journalists can investigate public projects, examine official documents and report discrepancies between approved plans and what is visible on the ground.
The EFCC's call for community vigilance therefore intersects with the work of civil society and the media.
Independent reporting can bring public attention to issues that may otherwise remain unnoticed.
However, journalism and civil-society monitoring also require verification.
Claims should be checked against official records and evidence.
The goal should be to provide citizens with reliable information rather than amplify allegations without confirmation.
The broader anti-corruption environment in Nigeria involves multiple institutions.
The EFCC investigates economic and financial crimes.
The ICPC focuses on corrupt practices and related offences within its statutory responsibilities.
The Auditor-General and other audit institutions examine public accounts.
Legislative bodies conduct oversight.
Procurement institutions establish rules governing public contracts.
Internal auditors and financial officers operate within ministries, departments and agencies.
Civil society groups and journalists provide additional scrutiny.
Community members are the people who ultimately experience many public services.
The effectiveness of anti-corruption efforts depends partly on how these different layers interact.
Information from one layer can trigger action in another.
A community complaint can lead to a media investigation.
A media report can prompt an official audit.
An audit can identify evidence requiring further investigation.
An investigation can result in prosecution where the evidence supports criminal charges.
The process requires institutions to perform their respective roles.
The EFCC's latest appeal therefore should be understood as an invitation for citizens to contribute information, not as a transfer of investigative responsibilities to communities.
Professional investigations remain necessary.
The commission will need to determine whether information supplied by citizens meets the threshold for further action.
Evidence must be gathered lawfully.
Suspects must be treated according to due process.
Courts ultimately determine criminal responsibility where cases proceed to trial.
The public should therefore avoid treating allegations as established facts.
This is particularly important when complaints involve political figures, government officials, traditional institutions or prominent business people.
Anti-corruption work can be politically and socially sensitive.
Neutral and evidence-based procedures are necessary to maintain confidence in enforcement institutions.
The commission's new zonal directorate in Awka may strengthen its ability to engage with communities and institutions in Anambra and surrounding areas.
A regional presence can make it easier for residents to report concerns without travelling to distant offices.
It can also support closer engagement with state institutions and other stakeholders.
Olukoyede has said the EFCC wants communities to become conscious of the public interest.
That concept places citizens at the centre of accountability without suggesting that they should replace government institutions.
The public interest includes roads, schools, healthcare facilities, water projects, public housing, agricultural programmes and other services financed by public funds.
When those resources are properly managed, the intended beneficiaries can receive them.
When they are lost through fraud or diversion, communities bear the consequences.
The commission's message therefore connects financial integrity with development.
The practical challenge will be turning the call for vigilance into an organised and sustainable system.
Citizens need accessible reporting mechanisms.
Complaints need to be acknowledged and assessed.
Government agencies need to maintain accurate records.
Investigations need adequate resources.
Where wrongdoing is established, appropriate legal action must follow.
Where allegations are not supported, authorities should provide clarity where possible.
Without these steps, public enthusiasm for community monitoring could decline.
Trust is therefore an important part of the process.
Citizens need to believe that reporting suspected corruption will result in appropriate action and that they will not face retaliation for making legitimate reports.
Authorities also need to protect confidential information where necessary.
The same applies to whistleblowers and people who provide evidence.
Effective anti-corruption systems depend partly on people being willing to provide information.
If citizens fear retaliation or believe complaints will be ignored, they may remain silent.
Olukoyede's appeal for Nigerians not to look away therefore places a responsibility on institutions as well.
Authorities need to create conditions in which people can safely report genuine concerns.
The message also has a generational dimension.
Young Nigerians are among those who will eventually manage businesses, public institutions and community organisations.
Building a culture in which public resources are treated as belonging to the public can influence future attitudes toward corruption.
Education, religious institutions, traditional authorities and community groups can all contribute to such a culture.
Anti-corruption education is therefore not limited to legal warnings.
It can include lessons about public responsibility, ethical conduct, financial literacy and the consequences of fraud.
The EFCC's call for religious and traditional leaders reflects this wider social dimension.
Nigeria's anti-corruption efforts have traditionally received attention when arrests, prosecutions or asset recoveries occur.
The latest message places attention on what happens before a criminal case begins.
It asks whether communities can identify risks early and whether institutions can respond before public resources disappear.
That preventive focus is consistent with the commission's stated approach.
Prevention, however, should not be confused with proof of wrongdoing.
A monitoring alert is an indicator requiring assessment.
A community complaint is information requiring verification.
An investigation is a process for establishing facts.
A prosecution requires evidence that meets the applicable legal standard.
A conviction is ultimately determined by a court.
Keeping those stages distinct is essential to responsible anti-corruption reporting.
The EFCC's latest call therefore represents an appeal for broader participation in Nigeria's fight against financial crime.
Religious leaders, traditional rulers, community organisations, journalists and ordinary residents all have potential roles in drawing attention to the misuse of public resources.
Their role is strongest when they provide accurate information and work through lawful channels.
For government institutions, the message creates another reason to improve transparency around public projects and spending.
For citizens, it provides an invitation to pay attention to what happens to resources intended for their communities.
For anti-corruption agencies, it provides an opportunity to develop stronger links with people who can observe public projects at local level.
The challenge is to turn these principles into consistent practice.
Nigeria has numerous government projects spread across urban centres, rural communities and difficult-to-reach areas.
Monitoring all of them requires resources and coordination.
Technology can assist by making project information easier to access and by helping agencies analyse financial data.
Community reporting can provide information that automated systems cannot capture.
A functioning accountability system can therefore combine financial monitoring with physical verification and citizen feedback.
The latest EFCC initiative points in that direction.
It also reinforces the importance of prevention.
Olukoyede has argued that once money has been stolen, recovery may be incomplete, making prevention important.
That argument supports the commission's broader emphasis on identifying problems before public funds are lost.
The practical outcome will depend on implementation.
The EFCC will need to demonstrate how information from communities is assessed, how financial monitoring is conducted and what happens when potential irregularities are identified.
The public will also need to see that legitimate concerns receive appropriate attention.
As Nigeria continues its anti-corruption efforts, community participation can provide another layer of accountability.
The latest call from the EFCC chairman is therefore directed not only at government officials but at society as a whole.
Religious leaders, traditional rulers and community members are being encouraged to pay attention to public resources, ask questions about abandoned projects and report suspected diversion through appropriate channels.
The emphasis is on vigilance rather than confrontation.
It is on evidence rather than rumour.
And it is on cooperation with lawful institutions rather than replacing them.
The message delivered in Awka comes as the EFCC expands its regional presence and strengthens its stated preventive approach.
The new zonal directorate provides another institutional base for the commission's activities in the southeast.
The community-watch appeal gives citizens a complementary role in identifying issues that may require official attention.
Whether the approach produces measurable improvements will depend on how consistently information is collected, verified and acted upon.
For now, the EFCC has made its position clear: the fight against corruption requires more than enforcement after financial losses occur.
It also requires communities to notice what happens to public resources, ask legitimate questions and report credible concerns.
The ultimate purpose is to protect public funds and ensure that money allocated for communities is used for the purposes for which it was approved.
That responsibility involves government institutions, enforcement agencies and citizens alike.
The latest appeal from the EFCC is therefore another development in Nigeria's continuing effort to strengthen financial accountability and prevent public resources from being diverted away from the people they are intended to serve.