Supreme Court Strikes Out States’ Lawsuit Challenging Constitutionality Of EFCC Act

The Supreme Court has struck out a lawsuit brought by 16 states challenging the constitutionality of the act establishing the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

Delivering the verdict on Friday, Justice Uwani Abba-Aji, leading a seven-member panel, stated that “the EFCC Act, which is not a treaty but a convention, does not need the ratification of the houses of assembly”.

The seven-member panel of justices dismissed the suit for lack of merit. Abba-Aji said, “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 member states and the NASS can make laws from it, which will be binding on all the states in Nigeria as it is the case of EFCC Establishment Act.”

Regarding the NFIU, the Supreme Court held that its guidelines did not violate the constitutional provisions for managing state funds. The court noted that in a federal system like Nigeria’s, federating units do not possess absolute power, and the NFIU guidelines serve as benchmarks rather than controls.

The court held, “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.

“Where the NASS has enacted several laws on corruption, money laundering, etc, no state has the right to make law to compete with it. The investigative power of the EFCC cannot be said to be in conflict with legislative powers of the state assembly.

“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.”

At the outset of the ruling, the court dismissed all federal government objections to the states’ suit. Abba-Aji noted that since the plaintiffs’ case was against the AGF and not any specific agency, the Supreme Court could assume jurisdiction.

The court held, “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 anyone 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 lawsuit, initially filed by the Kogi State government, was joined by 15 other states. They argued that the National Assembly failed to adhere to Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which governs the incorporation of international treaties into domestic law, in the enactment of the EFCC Act.

The states maintained that domesticating a convention requires the approval of a majority of the state houses of assembly, based on Section 12 of the Constitution. They argued that this procedure was bypassed in the process of passing the EFCC Act and similar laws, making the EFCC Act inapplicable to states that did not consent.

The plaintiffs also challenged the powers of the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU) and the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC). They sought a declaration that “the federal government, through the NFIU, lacked the power to issue any directive, guideline, advisory, or any instrument howsoever called for the administration and management of funds belonging to the state.”

Additionally, they sought a declaration that the EFCC, NFIU, or any federal agency could not investigate, request documents, or arrest individuals for offences related to state fund management. In the days following, six states, Adamawa, Ebonyi, Anambra, Jigawa, Benue, and Enugu, withdrew from the suit.

Frances Ibiefo

Follow us on: