By Olusegun Olanrewaju
The Supreme Court has reserved judgement in a suit filed by 19 states against the federal government challenging the constitutionality of the laws establishing the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission EFCC and two others to a date to be communicated to the parties.
The plaintiffs, in the suit, marked SC/CV/178/2023, had argued that the Supreme Court, in Dr. Joseph Nwobike vs. the Federal Republic of Nigeria, had held that the United Nations Convention against corruption 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 argument was that, in bringing a Convention into Nigerian law, Section 12 must be complied with.
According to them, the Constitution’s provision 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.
The states’ argument in their present suit, which the Supreme Court had reportedly corroborated in the previous case mentioned, is that the law, as enacted, could not be applied to states that never approved of it by the provisions of the Nigerian constitution.
Hence, they argued that any institution formed based on reducing the UN Convention to law should be regarded as illegal.
At yesterday’s resumed hearing, the Apex Court held that its judgment would apply to Imo, Bauchi, Ogun, and Osun states. In contrast, Anambra, Ebonyi, and Adamawa stated that they had announced their decision to withdraw their suits.
The Attorney-General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, who was present in court as the Defendant, had craved the court’s indulgence to take the process they filed yesterday morning.
Justice Uwani Abba-Aji thereby granted leave to the defendant to use the reply on point of law filed yesterday.
Mohammed Abdulwahab, SAN, who appeared for the first Plaintiff, pointed out that the amended processes filed by the AGF were different from what had initially been filed, noting that he had to refile his processes to address the fresh issues and facts.
The old processes were, therefore, struck out.
“I seek your Lordship’s indulgence to adopt the processes. We urge your Lordship to grant all the reliefs sought. The crux of our suit is the decision of this court. The counsel representing the appellant in that suit, by the rules of this Court Order 4, will be called to address this court. He participated in the bill that birthed the EFCC and ICPC together,” he said.
The judge asked who the Counsel was, and Wahab, SAN, replied: Chief Kanu Agabi, SAN.
“Chief Kanu Agabi, SAN, told this court that the Convention of the UN reduced this into law. Section 12, that provision was never followed.
“This fact was not an issue with the AG Ondo Vs AG Federation case. So, there is a specific provision for bringing a convention in. You cannot just be talking about items 7 and 8.
“We are also challenging the foundation of those laws that created NIFU, EFCC, etc., not to create a constitutional crisis.
“We urge you to allow our suit and award high cost in favour of the Plaintiff on record,” the Counsel said.
*FG seeks dismissal of case as Anambra, Adamawa, Ebonyi back out
Responding, Fagbemi, SAN, contended that the AG Ondo v. AG Federation and other decisions had already settled all the issues raised in the Plaintiffs’ case and that the Supreme Court could not depart from those decisions. He, therefore, prayed that the suit be dismissed.
On AG Ekiti State Vs AGF, Counsel for the Defendant, Tijani Gazali (SAN), pointed out that the state was not represented at the last sitting and not yesterday.
“We apply that the matter be struck out for want of diligent prosecution, my lord,” Gazali prayed. This was granted.
The Attorney-General of Osun State, Oluwole Jimi-Bada, SAN, informed the court of their application to consolidate their suit with that of Kogi State.
“We have an application before your lordship, and with your kind permission, we are ready to proceed. It is an application for consolidation,” he said.
The judge, however, said the exciting thing about the case was that they were already part of the matter. “So why do you want to consolidate? Judgment has already been reserved.”
Justice Abba-Aji reserved judgment for a date to be communicated to the parties.
Yesterday, the number of states challenging the constitutionality of the EFCC and others had climbed to 19, including Kogi State, despite the withdrawal of three states.
The court ruled that the judgment on Kogi State would apply to Ogun, Nasarawa, and Osun states, which had earlier applied for consolidation.
The states in the suit Vs AGF are: Kogi, Kebbi, Katsina, Sokoto, Jigawa, Enugu, Oyo, Benue, Plateau, Cross River, Ondo, Niger, Edo, Bauchi, Imo, Osun, Nasarawa, Ogun, Taraba.
*Nigeria can’t survive without our agency, says Uwujaren, EFCC spokesperson
Meanwhile, EFCC’s Director of Public Affairs, Wilson Uwujaren, has defended the agency, saying without the anti-graft commission, Nigeria will crumble under corruption.
“We are shocked by what is happening,” Uwujaren said on Monday’s edition of Channels Television’s breakfast show The Morning Brief.
“Nigerians should see through this shenanigan and oppose it because I don’t know how this country can survive without the EFCC with our kind of corruption problem. Nigeria cannot do without the EFCC.
Uwujaren claimed those behind the challenge are “feeling the heat” of EFCC’s work and do not want to be held accountable.
“I am worried that, with the kind of problem we have with corruption in this country, some people would go to court to challenge the legality of EFCC,” he said.
“Those who are doing this, I am not sure that for citizens in their states, the EFCC is their most significant problem. I doubt if that is the case. What you see playing out is simply people who are feeling the heat of the work of the EFCC, and they want to derail what is happening within the EFCC.
“They see the EFCC as a threat, which is what is playing out. I think Nigerians can see through the gimmick of those behind the challenge of the legality of the commission.”
According to him, the establishment of the EFCC is backed by the country’s laws, and challenging its legality is purely to derail the fight against corruption.
“So, people concerned about transparency and accountability will wish the EFCC to be killed. Let me use the word killed because that is the agenda.
“They simply want to derail the fight against corruption because they don’t want accountability in their domains,” Uwujaren said.
