International legal war on the financing of terrorism

Purpose - This paper seeks to examine certain important aspects of the domestic laws of Nigeria, the UK, the USA and Canada with a view to pointing out the remarkable differences capable of affecting adversely the war on terror. Design/methodology/approach - Analyses the domestic laws of all four countries with a view to pointing out the remarkable differences capable of affecting adversely the war on terror. Findings - Despite the obvious zeal and commitment with which nations and states of the world have set out to wage a legal war on terrorism, particularly the aspect of financing it, and despite the existence of a convention of which they are members, serious disparity exists in the legal frameworks adopted for the war. Even amongst such countries as the UK, the USA and Canada, uniformity of laws and approach is still a far‐fetched idea, a situation that is capable of hurting the international collaboration against terror. There is an urgent need for closer affinity between the laws of such countries while even countries like Nigeria that may not presently consider themselves as serious targets of terrorism need to urgently shirk themselves of such impressions and reform their laws. Originality/value - The paper makes suggestions as to how the differences in the laws of the four countries may be corrected or down played, and how the international objectives of uniformity of laws may be achieved.