The Federal Government, on Tuesday, asked the Supreme Court to dismiss a suit that 19 states of the federation filed to declare operations of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, illegal.
FG, which was represented by the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, challenged the competence of the suit which it described as a threat to the ongoing fight against corruption and financial crimes in the country.
The AGF drew the attention of the apex court to a preliminary objection and counter-affidavit that FG filed on October 18 to query the legal propriety of the suit.
He maintained that contrary to the contention of the states, the EFCC was validly established in line with the provision of section 15(5) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
Fagbemi, SAN, equally refuted the claim of the plaintiffs that the Act that established the EFCC was an offshoot of an international convention that was not properly domesticated in Nigeria.
“I urge my lords to dismiss this suit in its entirety, otherwise, tomorrow, what the people will go out to say is that the Supreme Court has said we should no longer fight corruption.
“Moreover, ruling in favour of the plaintiffs will have a far-reaching implication, especially on all the previous convictions,” the AGF submitted.
FG’s objection came on a day that three states of the federation pulled out of the legal action.
The states; Anambra, Adamawa and Ebonyi, announced their decisions to withdraw from the matter, shortly after it was called up for hearing.
The Attorney General of Anambra state, Prof. Sylvia Ifemeje, told the apex court that the state was no longer willing to be a part of the case which was originally instituted by Kogi state.
She disclosed that the state’s withdrawal notice was dated October 20.
Likewise, Adamawa state, through its own AG, Mr. J. I. Jingi, notified the apex court that it had on October 14, also filed a notice of withdrawal.
Ebonyi state, which was initially listed as the 18th plaintiff, through it counsel, Mr. Ikenna Nwidagu, equally applied to withdraw from the suit.
Their request to pull out of the case was not opposed by the AGF who is the sole defendant in the matter.
Consequently, the apex court panel, led by Justice Uwani Abba-Aji, struck out the names of Anambra, Adamawa and Ebonyi states as the 9th, 16th and 18th plaintiffs in the suit, respectively.
Meanwhile, on its part, Osun state, through its AG, Oluwole Bada, applied to be allowed to consolidate its own grievance against the operations of the EFCC, with that of Kogi state.
Osun state told the court that it filed a separate suit to seek the same reliefs that Kogi state listed against the EFCC.
Whereas Sokoto state, which was earlier joined as a co-plaintiff in the matter, did not send any legal representative at the resumed proceeding on Tuesday, other states that announced their appearances, were; Kogi, Kebbi, Katsina, Jigawa, Oyo, Benue, Plateau, Cross River, Ondo, Niger, Edo and Bauchi.
Others were; Taraba, Imo and Nasarawa.
Even though the suit, marked: SC/CV/178/2023, was originally brought before the court by Kogi state, however, some of the states applied and were joined as co-plaintiffs while others filed applications for their own suit to be consolidated with the extant matter.
The states are basically challenging the legality of the operations of the EFCC which they insisted was not validly established by the then administration of President Olusegun Obasanjo.
It will be recalled that the EFCC was established by an Act of the National Assembly on December 12, 2002, by Obasanjo’s administration.
Following the appointment and confirmation of its pioneer Executive Chairman, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu and other administrative officers, by the Senate, the Commission commenced its operational activities on April 13, 2003, though its Establishment Act was later amended in 2004.
However, in the suit before the apex court, the states, through their respective Attorneys General, argued that section 12 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, was not complied with before the EFCC began its operations.
According to the plaintiffs, it was a mandatory provision of the Constitution that the majority of the Houses of Assembly of States must vote and agree to the passage of the EFCC Act, insisting that it was not something that only the National Assembly was legally allowed to do.
They told the Supreme Court that none of the states was carried along before the EFCC was established by then President Obasanjo’s administration.
They argued that the Supreme Court had in a decided case-law in Dr. Joseph Nwobike Vs Federal Republic of Nigeria, 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.
The plaintiffs maintained that since the due process was not followed before the EFCC Establishment Act was enacted, it cannot be applicable in states that never approved of it, in accordance with provisions of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
They argued that any agency that was formed as a result of the Act, ought to be regarded as an illegal institution.
The states relied on the fact that since the 1999 Constitution, as amended, is the supreme law of the land, any Act of the National Assembly that is inconsistent with the Constitution, ought to be declared a nullity.
Specifically, Kogi state, which originated the case, raised six questions for the apex court to determine, even as it sought nine principal reliefs.
It, among other things, prayed the Supreme Court for: “A declaration that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU) or any agency of the Federal Government of Nigeria cannot investigate, requisition documents, invite and or arrest anyone concerning offences arising from or touching on the administration and management of funds belonging to Kogi state of Nigeria or any Local Government Area of Kogi State.”
As well as: “A declaration that the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU) or any agency of the Federal Government, lacks the power to issue any directive, guideline, advisory or any instrument howsoever called for the administration and management of funds belonging to Kogi State of Nigeria or any Local Government Area of Kogi state.”
While adopting its processes on Tuesday, the state, through its counsel, Mr Abdulwahab Mohammed, SAN, urged the court to grant all the reliefs and “award heavy cost in favour of the plaintiffs on record.”
After it had listened to both sides, Justice Abba-Aji led the panel to reserve its judgement till a date it said would be communicated to the parties.
The panel stressed that its judgement would be binding on all the states.
