New revelations have surfaced as sixteen state governments have filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court, contesting the constitutionality of the laws establishing the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU). This development represents a significant legal confrontation that could have wide-reaching implications for Nigeria’s top anti-corruption agencies.
The legal action, officially listed as case number SC/CV/178/2023, was originally instituted by the Kogi State Government, represented by Attorney General Muiz Abdullahi SAN. As of this week, fifteen other states have joined Kogi as co-plaintiffs in the suit. These states include Ondo, Edo, Oyo, Ogun, Nasarawa, Kebbi, Katsina, Sokoto, Jigawa, Enugu, Benue, Anambra, Plateau, Cross River, and Niger. The inclusion of these states adds weight to the case, highlighting the growing discontent surrounding the legal framework underpinning the EFCC and NFIU.
The states argue that the formation of these institutions, specifically the EFCC, violated constitutional requirements. In their legal argument, they assert that the EFCC Act was not properly ratified by a majority of the states' Houses of Assembly, as is legally required. This has called into question the very legality of the EFCC’s existence and its operations across the country.
A seven-member panel of Supreme Court justices, led by Justice Uwani Abba-Aji, has taken up the case. On Tuesday, the court approved the consolidation of the states’ claims into a single case and set the hearing for October 22, 2024. As the date approaches, the nation’s attention has turned to the potential consequences this case could have on the country’s anti-corruption efforts and on the federal structure itself.
Speculation surrounding the motivations for the lawsuit has grown, with some linking the case to ongoing legal issues involving the former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Bello. Bello has been embroiled in a legal battle with the EFCC, facing allegations of misappropriating N110 billion during his time in office. Additionally, the EFCC has recently reopened investigations into over N772 billion worth of alleged money laundering cases involving 13 former governors and ministers. These high-profile cases include accusations against former Ekiti State governors Kayode Fayemi and Ayo Fayose, as well as current Minister Bello Matawalle. Other prominent figures under investigation include former Rivers State Governor Peter Odili, former Kano State Governor Rabiu Kwankwaso, and former Bayelsa State Governor Timipre Sylva.
In response to the legal challenge, the EFCC’s Head of Media and Publicity, Dele Oyewale, suggested that the lawsuit was a reflection of the commission’s effectiveness in its anti-corruption activities. He noted, “As a matter of fact, the actions are coming based on what the commission is doing. If we were not doing our work and generating the necessary action against corrupt practices, the kind of concerted hostility the commission is experiencing would not arise. I think this is an appraisal of the work the commission is doing and its effectiveness.” Oyewale went on to affirm the commission’s confidence in the judicial process, stating, “Whatever they are doing, there is no way it can stand. Yes, the matter is before the court, and the court is the only institution to adjudicate on the matter.”
Despite this, the motivations behind the states' involvement appear to vary. Oyo State’s Commissioner for Information, Dotun Oyelade, explained that their government’s participation stemmed from legal concerns about the statutes governing the EFCC, rather than any specific political agenda. He stated, “With respect to what might be the statutes of the EFCC, if legal lacunae are observed, it is not going to be business as usual, nor will it be a factor of which political party you belong to.”
In contrast, Ogun State’s Special Adviser on Media, Kayode Akinmade, denied any involvement in the case against the EFCC, clarifying that Ogun had filed a separate suit against the NFIU’s restrictive policies on state financial transactions. He explained, “It is not true that we filed a suit to challenge the constitutionality of the EFCC. What we filed was a suit to challenge the constitutionality of some policies of the NFIU restricting the access of state governments to their money by, for example, limiting how much they withdraw in cash. We did not even join Kogi’s suit. We filed our own.”
Other states, including Cross River, Plateau, and Katsina, either denied their involvement or declined to comment on the case. Cross River State Commissioner for Information Erasmus Ekpang clarified that while the state had previously joined a case brought by the Kogi State Government, their involvement was limited to challenging the NFIU’s authority to investigate local government funds. Ekpang stated, “What Cross River State joined was the previous suit instituted by the Kogi State Government against the National Financial Intelligence Unit, and it was done under the previous administration of Ben Ayade.”
Similarly, Plateau State’s Commissioner for Information, Musa Ashoms, denied that the state was involved in any effort to dismantle the EFCC. He remarked, “We have not taken a position on the cancellation of the EFCC as a state. It is a creation of law, and we believe the law should be allowed to take its course on any matter in the country.”
As the October 22 hearing date approaches, this case is set to become a landmark legal battle that could reshape the structure and authority of Nigeria’s premier anti-corruption bodies. The decision of the Supreme Court may ultimately determine the future of the EFCC and NFIU, as well as the balance of power between federal and state governments in Nigeria.
