19 states lose suit to scrap EFCC
The legality of the Economic and Financial Crime Commission has been affirmed by the Supreme Court.
The apex court, on Friday, dismissed a joint suit filed by 19 state governments to challenge the constitutionality of the laws that established the EFCC as well as the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission and the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit.
The 19 states are Kogi, Kebbi, Katsina, Sokoto, Jigawa, Enugu, Oyo, Benue, Anambra, Plateau, Cross-River, Ondo, Niger, Edo, Bauchi, Adamawa, Taraba, Ebonyi and Imo states.
Although Ogun and Nasarawa states joined in as parties in the suit, the duo were each allotted separate suit numbers as their appeal was only contesting the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit guidelines and advisory.
However, their suit was also dismissed.
The seven-man panel of justices led by Justice Uwani-Abba-Aji in a unanimous decision dismissed the suit for lacking in merit.
The apex court resolved the six issues brought before the court for determination against the plaintiffs, holding that the laws establishing the anti-corruption agencies were validly enacted by the National Assembly within its legislative competence.
It faulted the claim by the plaintiffs that the EFCC Act, being a product of the United Nations Convention on Corruption, ought to be ratified by the majority of the state’s houses of assembly.
The plaintiffs had, in their suit, argued that the Supreme Court, in Dr Joseph Nwobike vs the Federal Republic of Nigeria, had held that it was a United Nations Convention against Corruption that was reduced into the EFCC Establishment Act and that in enacting this law in 2004, the provision of Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, was not followed.
They argued that, in bringing a convention into Nigerian law, the provision of Section 12 must be complied with.
According to them, the provision of the constitution necessitated the majority of the states’ Houses of Assembly agreeing to bring the convention in before passing the EFCC Act and others, which was allegedly never done.
But the apex court, in its judgment, held that “the EFCC Act, which was not established from a treaty but a convention, does not need the ratification of the houses of assembly.”
Justice Abba-Aji further said, “Let me first look at the constitutional provision. The plaintiffs rely on Section 12 of the Constitution in their argument. A treaty is an agreement reached by two or more countries which has to be ratified.
“Conventions are agreed by a larger number of nations. Conventions only come into force when a larger number of countries have agreed.
“Therefore, the EFCC Act, which is not a treaty but a convention does not need the ratification of the Houses of Assembly.
“A convention would have been ratified by members state and the National Assembly can make laws from it, which will be binding on all the states in Nigeria as it is the case of EFCC Establishment Act.”
The apex court, therefore, dismissed, the suit in its entirety and resolved the case against the plaintiffs.
“In a country like Nigeria, the federating units do not have absolute power. The NFIU guideline is to present a benchmark and not to control the funds.
“Where an Act of law is made by the National Assembly like the NFIU and its guideline, it is binding on all.
“Any act that has been competently enacted by the National Assembly cannot be said to be inconsistent,” she said.
The Court stressed that where the National Assembly had enacted several laws on corruption, money laundering, etc, no state has the right to make law to compete with it.
“The investigative power of the EFCC cannot be said to conflict with legislative powers of the state’s houses of assembly.
“I must agree with the honourable AGF that the plaintiffs’ argument, that is, the houses of assembly of the plaintiffs states, is not tenable in law,” Justice Abba-Aji said.
She added that the NFIU guideline had not contravened the provision of the constitution in the management of the state’s funds and resolved the issues against the plaintiffs.
Justice Abba-Aji 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 AGF and not any of the agencies mentioned, hence, the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to determine it.
The judge held that it was clear that the Federal Government had a legal tussle with the states based on the directive of the NFIU which the states were contending.
“Therefore, the preliminary objection is hereby dismissed,” She declared.
