…Strikes out FG’s preliminary objections
The Supreme Court, on Friday, November 15, 2024, dismissed a suit filed by 16 state governors challenging the legality and constitutionality of the Act establishing the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Act and two other anti-corruption agencies.
This was as the apex court stroke out the preliminary objection filed by the Federal Government against the suit and held that the suit lacked merit thus, affirmed the legality of the establishment of the EFCC and the two other anti-corruption agencies.
The Supreme Court held that where the National Assembly has enacted several laws on corruption, money laundering, etc, no state has the right to make law to compete with it, stressing that the investigative power of the EFCC cannot be said to be in conflict with legislative powers of the State Assembly.
The plaintiffs had argued that the Supreme Court, in Dr Joseph Nwobike Vs Federal Republic of Nigeria, held that it was a UN Convention against corruption that was reduced into the EFCC Establishment Act, adding that in enacting the law in 2004, the provision of Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, was not followed.
They further argued that in bringing a convention into the Nigerian law, the provision of Section 12 of the Constitution of Nigeria, must be complied with.
The plaintiffs stressed that the provision of the Constitution necessitated the majority of the State Houses of Assembly agreeing to bringing the convention in before passing the EFCC Act and others, which was never complied with.
Delivering judgement on the suit, Justice Uwani Abba-Aji, who led a seven-member panel of justices, held that the EFCC Act, which is not a treaty but a convention does not need the ratification of the Houses of Assembly.
Justice Abba-Aji held; “Let me first look at the constitutional provision. The plaintiffs rely on Section 12 of the constitution in their argument. Treaty is an agreement reached by two or more countries which has to be ratified.
“Convention: Conventions are agreed by a larger number of nations. Conventions only come into force when a larger number of countries agree.
“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 the EFCC Establishment Act”.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the suit in its entirety and resolved the case against the plaintiffs, stressing that in a country like Nigeria, the federating units do not have absolute power.
The Supreme Court also held that; “The NFIU guideline is to present a benchmark and not to control the funds. Where an Act of law is made by NASS like the NFIU and its guideline, it is binding on all. Any act that has been competently enacted by the NASS cannot be said to be inconsistent.
“I must agree with the AGF that the plaintiffs’ argument, that is, the Houses of Assembly of the plaintiffs States is not tenable in law,” it declared.
The Supreme Court also ruled that the NFIU guideline did not contravened the provision of the constitution to manage the funds of their states and therefore resolved the issues against the plaintiffs.
Significantly, all the other judges agreed with the lead judgment, saying all the issues raised in the suit file by the 16 States had no merit and accordingly dismissed.
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.
According to him; “Since the AGF is assumed to be the Chief law officer of the federation, he is by all means the proper and necessary party. The AGF has locus standi to institute action against any one and the AGF can be sued in any civil matter against the government.
“It is clear that the Federal Government has legal tussle with the states based on the directive of the NFIU which the states are contending. The preliminary objection is hereby dismissed,” the apex court ruled.
Reacting to the judgement, Counsel to Kogi State, Abdulwahab Mohammed, SAN, said, “This is an issue we have raised before the FHC, it was not addressed. We raised it at the Appeal Court and was not addressed. This is going to enrich our jurisprudence. We thank your lordship for hearing us out”.
In his own remarks, the representative of the AGF, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, said, “We convey our gratitude to the court for your wisdom. Your lordship has permanently settled the legality of the anti-corruption agency in fighting corruption”.
