By Prof. Chiwuike Uba, Ph.D., FCNA
The comments credited to the President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nigeria, Mallam Haruna Nma Yahaya, and reported by The Guardian on August 29, 2025, under the headline “At 60, ICAN Moves Against Proliferation of Professional Bodies”, demand a clear response from all who care about the growth, integrity, and future of our profession. As a Fellow of the Association of National Accountants of Nigeria, I find the assertions made both troubling and misleading.
The use of the term “proliferation” to describe the existence of other professional bodies like the Association of National Accountants of Nigeria, the Chartered Institute of Taxation of Nigeria, and other specialised professional associations is inaccurate and dismissive. What the ICAN President refers to as proliferation is in fact professional diversity, which is an essential feature of any healthy democracy and a dynamic economy. Nigeria is too large and too complex to be served effectively by a single professional institution in accountancy, taxation and related specialisms. ANAN was established by the National Assembly for good public policy reasons and to broaden access to the profession. To suggest otherwise is to undermine the considered judgment of our lawmakers and the democratic process that created a plural professional space.
Monopolies in professional life have predictable and damaging consequences for standards, innovation and accountability. The history of the accountancy profession globally shows that plurality produces options, competition and professional renewal. In the United Kingdom ACCA, ICAEW and CIMA coexist, each with distinctive strengths. In the United States professional recognition takes many forms, including AICPA and other specialist credentials. South Africa recognises SAICA alongside international qualifications. This is not fragmentation; it is functional differentiation that raises standards and widens participation. Nigeria should not retreat into an exclusivist mindset at a moment when the world demands specialised capacities in areas such as tax policy, forensic accounting, credit administration and fraud examination.
ANAN has consistently demonstrated its contribution to national development in ways that speak to this reality. Through the ANAN College of Accountancy in Jos we have pioneered a model of professional training that serves West Africa, providing ethical formation and technical capacity. ANAN’s membership of international bodies such as the International Federation of Accountants and the Pan-African Federation of Accountants situates our work within global professional norms. Thousands of ANAN-trained accountants serve across federal and state ministries, agencies and parastatals as well as in the private sector. These professionals play daily roles in public financial management, audit, fiscal transparency and institutional reform, thereby advancing the public interest rather than diminishing it.
It is also important to stress that legitimate specialised professional bodies such as the Chartered Institute of Taxation of Nigeria, the Chartered Institute of Forensic and Certified Fraud Examiners, the Institute of Credit Administration and the Chartered Institute of Stockbrokers fill critical technical and governance gaps. Taxation, forensic accounting, credit administration and fraud examination are technical fields that require focused training, continuing professional development and peer networks. If ICAN’s definition of “proliferation” captures the registration of such bodies, then the complaint represents a misplaced priority and a misunderstanding of modern professional practice. Nigeria needs, not fewer specialised bodies, but stronger, better regulated, and collaborative ones.
The conversation about professional diversity should not be allowed to mask another reality: the public interest is best served by transparency, methodological rigor and objective evaluation of any policy instrument that claims to guide governance reforms. ICAN’s Accountability Index is an initiative that merits attention and critique, but it should be presented with full methodological transparency, independent peer review and unambiguous attribution of any external endorsements. ICAN has publicised engagements with development partners and referenced PAFA and World Bank interactions. PAFA has engaged positively with accountability work on the continent. To my knowledge there is no formal technical endorsement by the World Bank published as a World Bank policy statement. There is a crucial difference between presenting an index to development partners and being formally endorsed by them. For an index that aspires to inform public policy, full disclosure of methodology, data sources, validation processes and any conflict of interest safeguards is essential.
The media coverage of ICAN’s statement should also have been more probing. Journalists and editors ought to have asked ICAN to name specific bodies it regards as problematic, to provide documented cases of harm, and to share the ICAN Accountability Index methodology and peer review status. They should also have sought the views of the Corporate Affairs Commission, the National Assembly and other professional bodies, including ANAN, on how registration and statutory recognition operate in practice. Good journalism tests assertions with evidence. A press release repeated as reportage without critical interrogation does a disservice to public understanding.
From a legal and constitutional perspective both ICAN and ANAN are creatures of Acts of the National Assembly. Only Parliament can create or amend statutory professional bodies. Any public policy that would seek to prevent the registration of associations or to limit freedom of association should be evaluated against constitutional guarantees and the rule of law. To ask the government to use the registration process as a means of exclusion without clear, objective and transparent criteria risks institutional capture and the erosion of democratic norms. If the problem is weak regulatory oversight, the solution lies in strengthening regulatory processes, not in a blanket attempt to protect an incumbency.
It is also vital to recognise the real priorities that demand our professional effort. Nigeria’s governance deficit is driven by systemic corruption, weak institutions, poverty, unemployment and fiscal leakages. These are the proliferations that actually matter and that sap public trust and economic potential. Professionals across badges and titles share the responsibility to confront these challenges. Both ICAN-trained and ANAN-trained accountants have a role to play in improving fiscal management, strengthening audit systems, promoting ethical conduct and advising on reforms. The debate should therefore be redirected from exclusionary rhetoric to collaborative action.
Concretely, policymakers should develop transparent criteria for when a new professional body can be recognised. Such criteria must include robust competency standards, credible continuing professional development frameworks, ethical codes enforceable by peers, and clear public-interest justifications for any statutory privileges. Consideration should be given to a national register of recognised professional qualifications so that employers, regulators and the public can identify which titles entail statutory protections and which denote specialist competencies. If the ICAN Accountability Index is to be used as part of policy dialogue or conditionality by external partners, it must be independently audited and its methodology published in full.
The professional community must also move from contestation to partnership. ICAN and ANAN, along with other specialist institutes such as CITN, forensic and fraud bodies, and credit and securities institutes, should establish joint task forces to strengthen public financial management, expand ethical training, and support capacity building at federal, state and local government levels. There is scope for shared certification pathways, reciprocal recognition for specialist modules, and joint public interest campaigns against corruption. Such collaboration will be more productive than litigation or public antagonism, and it will serve the nation better.
Ultimately, ANAN is not in rivalry with ICAN for the sake of rivalry. Both institutes were established to serve Nigeria in different but complementary ways. The presence of multiple professional institutions is not a weakness; it is diversification. Nigeria is better served by multiple centres of excellence, each bringing unique expertise to bear on the technical and governance problems we face. The future of our profession and our country demands inclusion, specialisation and synergy. What we need now are strong, ethical and innovative professional bodies united in purpose: to confront corruption, to strengthen governance and to help unlock our nation’s economic potential.
The call of history is not for fewer voices but for stronger collaboration among diverse voices. Let this generation of professionals rise above turf wars and embrace partnership. The destiny of Nigeria is too important to be held hostage by narrow institutional interests. Let those of us who are privileged to lead our professions choose the harder but nobler task of building institutions that serve the public interest with transparency, competence and humility. God is with us!
About the author
Prof. Chiwuike Uba, PhD, FCNA, is a Fellow of the Association of National Accountants of Nigeria. He is an economist, policy analyst and governance expert with extensive experience in public financial management, development advisory and institutional strengthening. He serves on the boards of several companies and think-tanks in Nigeria and internationally and is widely published on issues of economics, governance and national development.