The Nigerian Labour Congress, NLC and the Central Bank of Nigeria, CBN, has said it was not feasible for workers in the banks to declare their assets.

The two institutions disclosed this at the public hearing of a bill seeking to amend the Financial Institutions Assets Declaration Act.

Represented by its Head of Research, Dr.Onoho’Omhen Ebhohimhen at the hearing, the NLC said workers in the banks are not public officers and legally not oblige to declare their assets

He said: “Workers in the banking industry are not public officers. Employees in the banking and other financial institutions are not public officers. It is important to say that workers do not own banks and are not directors of banks. Workers in the bank see their labour power and in return, they are paid wages. Therefore, we say that clause 3 that seeks to bring workers in the financial institutions including banks as if they are public officers need to be corrected because those workers are not public officers and cannot be classified as pubic officers. They are not elected, they are not appointed.

“From the explanatory note, it appears that what you are targeting is acts of money laundering, corruption and others. If that is the intent, we suggest that the bill is made categorically clear on who this piece of legislation is directed at and not an omnibus legislation. We are concerned about that because most of our members in the banks don’t even have the money to put in the bank.

“Therefore, we are asking this committee to use the instrumentality of the law to protect the workers in the banking sector who are subject to all manner of exploitation. They are not the people who should be captured as money launderers and people who should be prevented from owning bank accounts abroad. Therefore, we submit that only Directors and owners of banks can be captured in the law while workers need to be saved from that malfeasance in the banking industry. They are victims of such practices in the banking sector and victims should not be denied their rights”.

The Central Bank of Nigeria,represented by its Acting Director of Banking Supervisions, Abubakar Shebe, said that while those in the public sector were affected by the provision, those in the private sector cannot be compelled to declare their assets.

He also said:”While the bill seeks to remove Customs officers from the definition of bank employee, section 14 of the act has not been amended to remove the management and employees of the CBN from such classification. We believe such amendment is necessary considering the fact that the management and employees of the CBN are public officers in the meaning of the constitution and therefore bound by the Code of Conduct Act which places a duty on them to declare their assets to the Code of Conduct Bureau.

“The provision that prevents bank employees from owning personal foreign bank account is not expedient since they are private and not a public sector institution. The provision will also discourage Nigerians in the diaspora and foreigners from participating in the management of financial institutions. So, we recommend that the provision should be deleted because bank employees are not public officers, but private sector workers”.

In their submission, the chairman of the Legal Advisers in the Banking Industry; representatives of the Body of Banks’ Chief Executive Officers, a committee of the Chartered Institute of Bankers in Nigeria; and Head, Legal Services, Union Bank Plc, Sesan Sobowale, maintained that it may  not be easy for bank staff to identify whether their spouse owned assets or not.

“Our view is that the amendment should restricted to those bank employees alone as it may not be feasible to them to know his or her spouse’s assets for various reasons. He or she may not even know that the spouse has acquired an asset. We are also aware that spouses can have investment that are not known to their better half and since these declarations are going to be made on oath, it means that it is be made at the risk of criminal sanction.

“We acknowledge the rationale for this provisions which is that it is possible that bank employees transfer assets to their spouses. But there is already a provision in the principal act which confers power on the appropriate authority to investigate the asstes of such spouse, parents and associates. In view of this, the new provision may not be necessary after all, because existing provision allow for the investigation of assets of those spouses.

“The second area we will like to comment on is section which prohibits ownership of foreign bank account. It states that bank employees are prohibited from owning bank accounts in any foreign country outside Nigeria. We do not believe that this amendment should be made for the following reasons. First, in the Nigerian banking industry today, we have banks that are doing business across Africa, in Europe and in Asia and these are not representative offices or branches. They are fully incorporated companies in those jurisdictions and the employees could be residing in either London, China, Kenya, Accra or New York and they would need a local account where they live to be able to function as human beings. Secondly, the Nigerian economy has opened up significantly that you now have foreigners who work in the Nigerian Banking industry both at the Board and management level. It will not be wise to ask nationals of those countries not to have account in their countries. The board of Union bank for example has five non Nigerians and we cannot say that becasue they work in a Nigerian bank, they cannot have a bank account in their country.

“We also do not undertand why employees in the banking sector should be targeted with the provision of not having foreign bank account while other private sector emloyees are not so restricted. The law already states which category of people should not own foreign bank account and these include President, Vice President, Governors and their deputies, members of the National Assembly. So, there is no basis for elevating bankers to the position that they don’t deserve. In view of this, we asked the committee to take a second look at this provision. They’re are many Nigerians both within and outside the banking industry who studied abroad and while they were there, they needed bank accounts to function and still hold on to those accounts. Some use them as alternative investments. There are also those who studied abroad and currently working in the banks. Are they required to close their bank accounts”, he said.

However,the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC,emphasized that  it was necessary to amend the Act.

Represented by Hadiza Gamawa Zubairu, Chief of Staff to Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, Abdulrasheed Bawa”, the Commission said “we do adopt part of the submissions made by the Central Bank where it highlighted the area of changing the title of the bill from ‘bank employees’ to ‘financial institutions employees.’ We are also seeking extension of the application of this bill to cover the designated non-financial institutions, in addition to the financial institutions. As it relates to the appropriate authority, the EFCC is seeking to be the appropriate authority to receive these declarations.

“In relation to the properties of the spouses of financial institutions and designated non-financial institutions’ employees, the EFCC supports that position because, looking at the issues at hand, when you are dealing with money laundering, each and everybody becomes a part and parcel of that – the individual, the spouse, the children and the associates are all part of it. And looking at what is obtainable in the public sector where we are declare our assets to the Code of Conduct Bureau, we are equally required to declare the assets of our spouses and children as well. So, we feel that this should remain as it is”.