The Supreme Court has dismissed a suit filed by state governors challenging the legality of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Act and two other anti-corruption agencies.
The court ruled that the suit before it lacked merit, affirming the legality of the EFCC’s establishment and the two other anti-corruption agencies.
The other agencies named in the suit were the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) and the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU).
During the ruling on Friday, the apex court described the suit filed by the Attorneys General of Kogi State and others as “selfish,” and upheld the legality of anti-corruption agencies, affirming their statutory mandate to investigate and prosecute financial crimes across the federation.
Before the ruling, counsel for Kogi State, Mohammed Abdulwahab, SAN, who originally instituted the action, called the apex court’s attention to a previous Supreme Court observation that a United Nations Convention Against Corruption was incorporated into the EFCC Establishment Act, contrary to Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
Section 12 partly read, “No treaty between the Federation and any other country shall have the force of law except to the extent to which any such treaty has been enacted into law by the National Assembly.”
“A bill for an Act of the National Assembly passed pursuant to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall not be presented to the President for assent and shall not be enacted unless it is ratified by a majority of all the Houses of Assembly in the Federation.”
Abdulwahab argued that the Constitution requires a majority of state Houses of Assembly to approve alongside federal legislators when passing the EFCC Act and similar laws. He claimed this process was not followed and urged the Supreme Court to declare the creation of the anti-corruption agencies unconstitutional.
“I seek your Lordship’s indulgence to adopt the processes. We urge your Lordship to grant all the reliefs sought. We are also challenging the foundation of those laws that created NFIU, EFCC, etc., to avoid creating a constitutional crisis. We urge you to allow our suit and award heavy costs in favor of the Plaintiff on record,” he said.
In response to the argument, the seven-member panel, led by Justice Uwani Abba-Aji, noted the similarities in the issues raised by the states against the anti-graft agencies and passed that its judgment in Kogi State’s case would extend to all the states involved.
Abba-Aji noted that while the EFCC Act had been challenged in a previous case, the other agencies were not included in the previous suit.
However, she held that the plaintiff’s case was against the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), not any federal agency, giving the Supreme Court jurisdiction to decide the case.
“Moreover, the non-joinder of a party does not affect the jurisdiction of this court. In matters of public interest, the AGF has the legal right (locus standi) to institute actions or defend same,” the judge held.
On the merits of the case, she affirmed that the NFIU Act was passed to combat money laundering and related crimes.
“By Section 15 of the 1999 Constitution, and the decision of this apex court in AG vs Ondo, the National Assembly has the powers to enact laws relating to fighting corruption, irrespective of whether the funds belong to the federal, state, or local governments,” she said, emphasizing that states are part of the federal system.
The judge also stated that when a guideline is issued under an act passed by the National Assembly, its constitutionality cannot be challenged.
“Indeed, the effect of the provisions of the EFCC Act leaves no doubt that it has the power to investigate and prosecute financial crimes,” she said.
The judge stated that no state law could contradict federal laws like the EFCC, NFIU, and ICPC Acts, which have been enacted by the National Assembly.
“No state has the right to enact a law that is inconsistent with the laws enacted by the National Assembly,” she said, criticizing Kogi’s Attorney General for enabling corrupt practices.
The court concluded that there was no issue with the NFIU Act affecting state control over their funds, resolving the issues against the plaintiffs.
Regarding the EFCC Act, the judge stated that the inclusion of the UN Convention aimed at addressing global issues and confirmed the National Assembly’s authority to pass corruption laws without needing ratification by the Houses of Assembly.
It also noted that the EFCC Act is valid and the plaintiff’s suit was dismissed in its entirety.
“The plaintiff’s suit fails and is hereby dismissed in its entirety,” she held.
The suit against EFCC and the two other anti-graft agencies was filed by Ondo, Kastina, Kebbi, Sokoto, Oyo, Benue, Enugu, and Plateau.
Other states involved were Cross River, Niger, Edo, Bauchi, Taraba and Imo.
