The Supreme Court has dismissed the suit filed by some state Attorneys General challenging the establishment of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Act.
While delivering judgment on Friday, 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”.
“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 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,” the judge added.
The Supreme Court dismissed the suit in its entirety and resolved the case against the plaintiffs.
“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.
“Where the National Assembly has enecated several laws on corruption, money laundering, etc, no state has the right to make laws 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 plaintiff states – is not tenable in law,” the Supreme Court added.
The Court ruled that the NFIU guideline had not contravened the provisions of the Constitution on the powers of states to manage their funds, and resolved the issues against the plaintiffs.
All other judges agreed with the lead judgment, saying all the issues raised in the states’ suit had no merit “and are accordingly dismissed”.
The Court had earlier dismissed all objections of the Federal Government to the suit filed by the states.
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.
“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,” he ruled.
Reacting, the 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.”
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.”
The suit, which was initially instituted by the Attorneys General of 16 states, asked the apex court to scrap the anti-graft agency. While some states withdrew from the suit, some others asked to be joined as co-plaintiffs.
The states that initiated the suit include Ondo, Edo, Oyo, Ogun, Nassarawa, Kebbi, Katsina, Sokoto, Jigawa, Enugu, Benue, Anambra, Plateau, Cross-River and Niger.
However, at the resumed hearing on October 22, Imo, Bauchi, and Osun states joined the suit as co-plaintiffs while Anambra, Ebonyi, and Adamawa states announced their decisions to withdraw their suits.
The trio’s suits were struck out, accordingly, by the apex court.
