– Source:

The prevalence of fraud in both the public and private sectors in Nigeria has been widely acknowledged. Fraud includes obtaining money by false pretence, and diversion of money into unauthorised private use. But things are changing too. For instance, digital-payment fraud losses fell by 51%, from N52.26 billion (about US$38 million) in 2024 to N25.85 billion (US$19 million) in 2025.

Former president Olusegun Obasanjo’s administration established the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission in 2000 to investigate and prosecute corruption. Its twin agency, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, was established in 2002. Both have done well in investigating high-profile fraud cases and recovering stolen assets.

The Nigerian Security and Civil Defence Corps was established in 2003 with a mandate to protect lives, properties and critical national assets. Its anti-fraud unit was inaugurated in 2007. It focuses on cases such as “obtaining by false pretence” and “visa racketeering”, which are often overlooked by larger agencies that deal with high-profile cases.

As criminologists we’ve observed that little is known about this corps’ unique role.

In a recent study, we examined some examples of its work to establish how well it met its mandate.

We discovered that the corps could have performed better with more resources to investigate fraud and better cooperation from sister agencies. Increased funding would help it to achieve its mandate of fighting crime and fraud.

Examining fraud cases

The research examined 27 fraud cases prosecuted in the Oyo State Security and Civil Defence Corps Anti-Fraud Unit. The study results could help guide practical interventions by the appropriate authorities to fund the corp’s capacity to investigate and prosecute fraud cases using modern technologies.

We looked at:

• the types of fraud commonly reported and investigated

• the strategies used by fraudsters

• factors that determined the approaches adopted in investigation

• challenges encountered in the process.

The cases were “obtaining by false pretence” (16 cases) and “visa racketeering” (11). False pretence involves collecting money or assets under false arrangements. Most visa cases involved people claiming to be connected to embassies or consulates, and taking money with the false promise of processing a visa.

One corps member said:

Essentially, it’s about obtaining money or assets through deceit. Victim vulnerability and trust manipulation make these fraudulent activities possible.

All the 27 cases we examined were resolved through recovery and mediation. Complainants received their money in full. The mediation process included signing a memorandum of understanding by all parties with an agreed payment schedule. The professional and thorough process ensured fairness, upheld suspects’ rights and facilitated justice for the victims.

Strategies for investigating fraud

The unit used three strategies in their investigations.

The first is community sourcing or partnership. This involves the unit relying on information from the community or people affected by fraud to start their investigations. Investigations begin with the formal lodging of a complaint.

The second strategy was evidence gathering and analysis. This included getting witness statements and document verification.

But detectives admitted that financial constraints limited the adoption and use of advanced investigative techniques such as using technology.

In most cases, we have to rely on manual tracking and statements from the complainant. This can slow down investigations when suspects move across states.

The unit’s third strategy was mediation and restitution. The agency used this approach when victims of fraud prioritised recovery of stolen funds over the prosecution of the fraudster. A detective cited mediation as cost-effective and noted that it promoted quicker resolution of cases.

Prosecution takes time and money, and many victims prefer restitution. If we can recover their funds, that’s already a victory for them.

Challenges in fraud investigation

Despite their efforts, the Anti-Fraud Unit faces challenges that limit the extent of its work.

Inadequate funding is one. Fraud investigation is resource-intensive, and when funds are insufficient, complainants are often burdened with costs. This slows down the investigation process and, in some cases, compels complainants to opt for mediation as a cost-saving alternative to prolonged litigation.

It undermines the unit’s effectiveness:

We’re forced to ask complainants to fund investigations – transport, court orders, everything. It’s not fair, but we don’t have a choice.

In one of the reviewed case files, a complainant’s inability to provide funds led to case abandonment.

Apart from logistics, poor coordination with other law enforcement agencies limits information-sharing and suspect tracking. Sometimes, overlapping responsibilities among agencies affect smooth coordination. This has resulted in inter-agency rivalry and violence among security agencies.

A detective lamented:

Sometimes, we find suspects but can’t act because another agency is handling a related case. There’s no clear protocol for collaboration.

Way forward

There is a need for improved fraud awareness education so that ordinary Nigerians understand how fraudsters operate.

The federal government should equally increase funding to the Nigerian Security and Civil Defence Corps, with a dedicated allocation for the Anti-Fraud Unit. This would address many logistics challenges that affect fraud investigations and outcomes.

With dedicated resources, the Anti-Fraud Unit would be able to finance its operations, train more personnel and purchase modern investigation tools.

Nigerian security agencies investigating fraud must also strengthen collaboration to improve effectiveness. This will involve sharing databases and protocols for seamless operation.

Oludayo Tade does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

By Oludayo Tade, Professor of Sociology (Criminology, Victimology and Security Studies), University of Ibadan