UPDATED: Supreme Court dismisses state govts’ suit against EFCC, others, rebukes Kogi, others
In a stinging rebuke, the Supreme Court described the state governments that filed the case as selfish.
· Premium TimesThe Supreme Court on Friday dismissed the suit filed by some state governments led by Kogi State to challenge the establishment and prosecutorial powers of Nigeria’s key anti-corruption agencies.
The verdict laid to rest wide-ranging issues often raised by state governments against investigations and prosecutions of their current and former officials by the federal agencies.
The agencies are the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Independent Corruption Practices and other related offences Commission (ICPC) as well as the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU).
A seven-member panel led by Uwani Abba-Aji unanimously dismissed the suit filed by 19 state governments to challenge the agencies’ existence on Friday.
The court held that the suit lacked merit.
Ms Abba-Aji, who delivered the lead judgement, also rebuked the plaintiffs, describing their intention behind the filing of the legal action as “selfish”.
She held that the first plaintiff (Kogi State) “opened the can of worms and skeletons in its cupboard” with its claim in the suit that the EFCC had invited and investigated officials of the state government.
According to Ms Abba-Aji, the claim was the height of “the selfish reasons of the plaintiffs’ suit.”
The judge said Kogi offered itself as a “puppet” for corrupt practices by leading the charge against the anti-corruption agencies.
The court also affirmed the investigative and prosecutorial powers of the EFCC and the ICPC over crimes committed at both the state and federal levels.
It is of no moment if the states have set up their own anti-corruption agencies. Ms Abba-Aji held that as much as Kogi and other states have the power to enact their own laws, no state government can enact a law to compete with the Acts of the National Assembly establishing EFCC, NFIU, and ICPC.
“No state has the right to enact a law that is inconsistent with the laws enacted by the National Assembly,” she said.
The Kogi State government, through its Attorney-General, commenced the suit at a time when the immediate-past governor of the state, Yahaya Bello, was battling to avoid trial by the EFCC.
Since the time the suit commenced at the Supreme Court, EFCC has filed another case of fraud involving an alleged diversion of over N110 billion from Kogi State’s coffers against Mr Bello, who completed his second and final term as governor in January. The new case added to the pre-existing one involving N80 billion money laundering charges.
Both cases are pending before separate courts in Abuja. So far, Mr Bello, who enjoys the full backing of his successor, Governor Usman Ododo, has managed to avoid arraignment in the two cases, shunning several court summonses.
After Kogi State filed the suit at the Supreme Court to challenge the establishment of EFCC and other agencies, a flood of other states joined. The number of plaintiffs kept fluctuating as more states joined and others withdrew as plaintiffs.
The states that remained plaintiffs as of the time of judgement are Kogi, Kebbi, Katsina, Sokoto, Enugu, Oyo, Plateau, Cross River, Ondo, Niger, Edo, Bauchi, Imo, Osun, Nasarawa, Ogun, and Taraba.
Benue and Jigawa states announced their withdrawal from the suit after the Supreme Court heard the submissions of parties and adjourned for judgement.
The plaintiffs had, in their suit, argued that the Supreme Court, in a precedent – Joseph Nwobike Vs Federal Republic of Nigeria – held that it was a UN 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 Nigerian Constitution was not followed.
They argued that, to implement a convention in Nigeria, the provision of section 12 must be complied with.
According to them, the provisions of the constitution require the majority of the states’ Houses of Assembly agreeing to the implementation of the convention before passing the EFCC Act and others, which was allegedly never done.
On 22 October, the court adjourned for judgement after the hearing of submissions of parties to the case.
Judgement
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the Supreme Court resolved all six issues raised for determination in the suit against the plaintiffs and in favour of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Lateef Fagbemi, the sole defendant in the suit.
The court held 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 EFCC Act, which was not established from a treaty but a convention, does not need the ratification of the houses of assembly,” the Supreme Court held.
“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 member states 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,” Ms Abba-Aji said.
It also affirmed the investigative power of EFCC.
“The investigative power of the EFCC cannot be said to be in 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 need to first ratify the conventions, is not tenable in law,” she added.
NFIU guidelines
Apart from affirming the legitimacy of the establishment of NFIU, the court held that the guidelines issued by the agency are binding.
“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 judge held that where the National Assembly had enacted several laws on corruption and money laundering, among others, no state had the right to make law to compete with it.
Ms Abba-Aji ruled that the NFIU guidelines had not contravened the provisions of the constitution in the management of the state’s funds.
She resolved the issues against the plaintiffs.
Other judges on the panel agreed with the lead judgement, stressing that all the issues raised in the states’ suit had no merit “and are accordingly dismissed.”
Resolution of preliminary objection
Ms Abba-Aji had earlier dismissed the federal government’s objections challenging the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to hear the suit filed by the states.
She held that the plaintiffs’ case was against the AGF and not any of the agencies mentioned, hence, the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to determine it.
“Since the AGF is assumed to be the chief law officer of the federation, he is by all means the proper and necessary party in the suit.
“The AGF has a locus standi to institute action against any one and the AGF can be sued in any civil matter against the government.”
The judge said that it was clear that the federal government had legal tussles with the states based on the directive of the NFIU which the states were contending. The state governments were against the NFIU guidelines on the use of local government funds in various states.
“Therefore, the preliminary objection is hereby dismissed,” he ruled.
Reactions
Reacting, the Kogi State Attorney-General, Abdulwahab Mohammed, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, said, “This is an issue we have raised before the Federal High Court; 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.”
Representative of the AGF, Rotimi Oyedepo, also a 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.”
(NAN)