On October 22, the Supreme Court will hold a significant hearing in response to a lawsuit brought by sixteen state governments. This lawsuit challenges the legality of the statutes creating the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) [/b]and two other regulatory bodies. The Supreme Court's decision could have far-reaching implications for the governance and regulatory framework within Nigeria, particularly concerning financial crimes and anti-corruption measures.
The date for this crucial hearing was established by a seven-member panel of justices headed by Justice Uwani Abba-Aji. This panel granted permission for the states to join as co-plaintiffs in the case and for the consolidation of this matter, which had originally been filed by the Attorney General of Kogi State. The case's consolidation is intended to streamline the judicial process, allowing for a more efficient examination of the complex legal issues at hand.
The participating states in this landmark lawsuit include Ondo, Edo, Oyo, Ogun, Nassarawa, Kebbi, Katsina, Sokoto, Jigawa, Enugu, Benue, Anambra, Plateau, Cross-River, and Niger. Collectively, these states are arguing that the establishment of the EFCC and the other bodies in question is inconsistent with constitutional provisions. The lawsuit has been designated as SC/CV/178/2023, highlighting its formal recognition by the court system.[/p>
The states argue that any law that conflicts with the constitution is null and void, and they assert that the constitution is Nigeria’s ultimate law. This legal stance underscores their commitment to upholding constitutional integrity and ensuring that all laws enacted within the country adhere to established constitutional mandates. They contend that the foundation of any legal framework must be rooted in the country's supreme legal document, which is designed to protect the rights and responsibilities of both the government and its citizens.
Citing the landmark case of Joseph Nwobike v. Federal Republic of Nigeria as a precedent, the plaintiffs argue that the United Nations Convention against Corruption was incorporated into the EFCC Establishment Act without following the required constitutional provisions. This assertion raises questions about the legitimacy of how international treaties and conventions are integrated into Nigerian law and whether due process was followed in such incorporation. The plaintiffs emphasize that the EFCC Act's enactment in 2004 did not comply with Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
Section 12 of the Constitution mandates that a majority of the state Houses of Assembly must consent to bringing any international convention into Nigerian law. The plaintiffs assert that such consent was not obtained in this instance, thereby rendering the law, as enacted, inapplicable to states that did not approve it. This argument highlights the plaintiffs' focus on the importance of procedural compliance in lawmaking and the potential implications of non-compliance for the legal system as a whole.
During Tuesday’s proceedings, lawyers representing the states presented their submissions, with the majority seeking to join as co-plaintiffs in this significant legal battle. Their collective efforts demonstrate a unified stance against the EFCC's legal standing and actions. Two states also requested the court’s approval for case consolidation, reinforcing the need for a comprehensive approach to this complex legal issue. Kogi’s AG counsel, Abdulwahab Mohammed, informed the court of the interests expressed by various states regarding their participation, further emphasizing the widespread concern regarding the EFCC's authority and operations.
Justice Abba-Aji granted the requests for joining co-plaintiffs and for consolidation, thereby simplifying the court’s task moving forward. The matter has now been adjourned until October 22 for further hearings, during which the court will delve deeper into the legal arguments presented by the states and the implications for the EFCC's operations. This adjournment provides an opportunity for all parties involved to prepare their cases more thoroughly, ensuring that all relevant legal considerations are addressed.
The Kogi State Attorney General, as the sole plaintiff in the suit, has raised six critical questions for determination and is seeking nine specific reliefs from the court. These inquiries and requests highlight the complexities of the legal issues at play and the potential consequences for governance in Nigeria. Among these requests is a declaration that the federal government, through the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU), lacks the authority to issue directives or guidelines concerning the administration and management of Kogi’s funds. This challenge to federal authority underscores the ongoing tensions between state and federal powers in Nigeria.
Additionally, they seek a declaration that the EFCC, NFIU, or any federal agency cannot investigate or take any action regarding offenses related to the management of Kogi’s financial resources. This request emphasizes the states' desire for autonomy in financial matters and their insistence on the need for constitutional compliance in the regulation of financial crimes. The outcome of this case could significantly reshape the landscape of anti-corruption efforts in Nigeria, with potential ramifications for federal-state relations in the country.[/p>