The Supreme Court, Friday, dismissed a suit filed by 19 states challenging the constitutionality of the laws establishing the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission, and the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit.
The 19 states were Kogi, Kebbi, Katsina, Sokoto, Jigawa, Enugu, Oyo, Benue, Anambra, Plateau, Cross River, Ondo, Niger, Edo, Bauchi, Adamawa, Taraba, Ebonyi, and Imo.
Although Ogun and Nasarawa states were listed as parties, their cases, which separately contested the NFIU guidelines and advisory, were assigned distinct suit numbers and similarly dismissed.
Six of the 19 states—Anambra, Adamawa, Ebonyi, Benue, Jigawa, and Enugu—later withdrew from the case.
However, Supreme Court records indicated that the judgment applied to all 19 plaintiffs.
Related news
- Exclusive: After One Year, NFIU Still An Appendage Of EFCC
- NGF, NLRC, Others Disagree Over Removal Of NFIU From EFCC
- How Nigerian Governors Fleece Local Government Councils’ Funds Despite NFIU Law
Delivering the Lead Judgement, Justice Abba-Aji resolved the six issues raised by the plaintiffs against them. The court ruled that the laws establishing the EFCC and other anti-corruption agencies were validly enacted by the National Assembly within its legislative competence.
The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ argument that the EFCC Act, as a product of the United Nations Convention on Corruption, required ratification by a majority of state Houses of Assembly under Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution.
“The EFCC Act, derived from a convention and not a treaty, does not require ratification by state assemblies,” Justice Abba-Aji stated.
The court explained that conventions, unlike treaties, are agreements reached by multiple nations and are binding once adopted, allowing the National Assembly to enact laws derived from such conventions without additional ratification by the states.
The Supreme Court also emphasised that the NFIU guidelines, intended to provide benchmarks for managing state funds, were lawful and did not contravene constitutional provisions.
“All laws competently enacted by the National Assembly, including those establishing the EFCC and NFIU, are binding on all states. States cannot enact competing legislation in areas already legislated by the federal government,” Justice Abba-Aji stated.
The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims that the investigative powers of the EFCC conflicted with the state legislative authority, ruling in favour of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF).
Justice Abba-Aji further noted that the AGF, as the chief law officer of the federation, was the appropriate party to defend the case and held that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter.
The judgment was unanimously supported by the six other justices on the panel, who also found no merit in the plaintiffs’ arguments.
‘Unconstitutional’
In their argument, the plaintiffs relied on the fact that the Constitution is the supreme law and that any law that is inconsistent with it is null and void.
They argue that the provision of Section 12 must be complied with in bringing a convention into Nigerian law.
According to them, based on the Constitution’s provision, the majority of the state Houses of Assembly needed to agree to bring the convention in before passing the EFCC Act and others, but that was allegedly never done.
The states argued in their suit that the law, as enacted, could not be applied to states that never approved of it, in accordance with the provisions of the Nigerian constitution.
Hence, they argued that any institution so formed should be regarded as illegal.
‘Nigeria can’t survive without EFCC’
Defending EFCC’s existence, the agency’s Director of Public Affairs Wilson Uwujaren, had maintained that without the anti-graft commission, Nigeria will crumble under corruption.
“We are really shocked by what is happening,” Uwujaren said on Monday’s edition of Channels Television’s breakfast show The Morning Brief on October 21.
“Nigerians should see through this shenanigan and oppose it because I don’t see how this country can survive without the EFCC with the kind of corruption problem that we have. Nigeria cannot do without the EFCC.”
Uwujaren claimed those behind the challenge are “feeling the heat” of EFCC’s work and do not want to be held accountable.
‘EFCC Has Come to Stay’
While the controversy on the legality of EFFC went on, human rights lawyer Femi Falana faulted the move by some states and believes measures to ensure the commission is not under the control of the government should be mapped out.
“For me, the ICPC and the EFCC like the Code of Conduct Tribunal have come to stay. What we should be demanding are measures to make these institutions autonomous, not under the control of any government,” Falana said on Channels Television’s Politics Today on October 20.
“And the Supreme Court has maintained rather repeatedly concerning the EFCC and EFCC; that these are common, they shouldn’t be under the control of the Federal Government.
“They are common agencies to fight economic crimes in our country, to fight financial crimes in our country, to fight corruption in our country.”
‘Unconstitutionally established’
Earlier, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Olisa Agbakoba had written to the National Assembly and argued that the EFCC was “unconstitutionally established”.
“I will go further to say that I very strongly believe the EFCC is unconstitutionally established. The powers under which it was established go beyond the powers of the National Assembly. The EFCC is an unlawful organization,” the renowned lawyer wrote in separate letters to the Senate and the House of Representatives.
“I am very delighted to note that many states have finally taken it upon themselves to challenge the constitutionality of the EFCC. This will put to rest the question relating to the validity of the EFCC.”
Justice Uwani Abba-Aji, held that the states were completely wrong in holding that EFCC established by an act of the National Assembly, was an illegal and unlawful body.
Justice Abba-Aji, who led a seven-member panel of justices, ruled that the EFCC Act, which is not a treaty but a convention, does not need the ratification of the houses of assembly.
The Court had earlier dismissed all objections of the Federal Government to the suit filed by the states.
Justice Abba-Aji said the plaintiffs case was against the Attorney-General of the Federation and not any of the agencies mentioned, hence, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to determine it.
