The proposed amnesty law for treasury looters currently before the House of Representatives can only be best described by one word: madness.

The law which proposes that looters be free of any probe, inquiry or prosecution for a period of three years or more provided that they fulfil conditions which include payment of a tax/surcharge and compulsory investment in any sector of the Nigerian economy amounts to legalising money laundering.

It is hard to imagine that the lawmaker who drafted this bill, Hon. Linus Okorie (PDP – Ebonyi) thought that it will be a brilliant idea to offer the people who have plundered the country through corruption and stealing of our commonwealth an open door to use that income to generate legal income.

His argument that it will prevent capital flight and stimulate the economy while also providing valuable insight and intelligence in asset tracing and tracking falls far short of convincing this newspaper that his idea is an excellent one.

What it rather does is create a scenario where people can confidently and brazenly loot, knowing that they will not be arrested. The clause in the bill that allows the Federal Government to extend the amnesty program beyond three years gives politicians an opportunity to possibly indefinitely have such a program for their own benefit.

Such a law will only worsen corruption and looting in Nigeria and create a free-for-all, as repercussions for actions have been eliminated. It will also amount to rubbing salt into the injury of Nigerians created by corruption – seeing those who have stolen public funds meant to improve their lives legally investing such funds and walking around scot-free.

It also rubbishes all the efforts that Nigeria has been doing in fighting corruption, such as strengthening anti-graft agencies and proposing systemic and legal reforms to prevent corruption and adequately punish those who engage in it.

If Hon. Okorie is serious about “preventing capital flight, stimulating the economy or providing helping anti-graft agencies generate valuable insight and intelligence in asset tracing and tracking”, then he needs to explore other ways to achieve this without legalising corruption.

For example, he could move to amend the Investment Promotion Act that allows investors to repatriate 100% of their profit if they choose to. What he fails to realise that stolen money moved abroad is also not spent openly as if it were legal, especially considering how common destinations of these monies are more stringent on money laundering.

He could also move that biometric data generated from bank verification number scheme (BVN) and SIM registration exercise be harmonised so that it can generate a trove of data that can be used to trace assets.

There is no short supply of ideas that can be used to achieve these objectives rather than this idea.

The House of Representatives will be doing the nation a great disservice if they allow this bill to go beyond the second reading.

It needs to be shut down immediately.