From Victor Osula, Abuja
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Act establishing the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission did not require any form of ratification by the Houses of Assembly of the 36 states of the federation since it was not a treaty but a convention.
Consequently, a seven-member panel of the apex court, led by Uwani Abba-Aji, in a unanimous decision, dismissed the suit filed by 19 states challenging the legality of the anti-graft agency.
“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 in the case of EFCC Establishment Act. 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 NASS like the NFIU and its guidelines, 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 them. The investigative power of the EFCC cannot be said to conflict with the 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,” the court held.
The suit was originally filed by the Kogi State government under suit number SC/CV/178/2023 and later joined by Ondo, Edo, Oyo, Ogun, Nasarawa, Kebbi, Katsina, Sokoto, Jigawa, Enugu, Benue, Anambra, Plateau, Cross River, Niger, Adamawa, Ebonyi, and Taraba.
They contested the constitutionality of the legislation that created the EFCC and other anti-corruption agencies, including the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission and the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit.
The states expressed their belief that the constitution stands as the highest authority, asserting that any law that contradicts is rendered void.
Citing the case of Dr. Joseph Nwobike and the Federal Republic of Nigeria, they contended that the Supreme Court had determined that a United Nations Convention against corruption was incorporated into the EFCC Establishment Act.
The plaintiffs had argued that when the EFCC Act was enacted in 2004, the provisions outlined in Section 12 of the amended 1999 Constitution which requires a majority of the State Houses of Assembly to consent to the Act as well as other legislations, were not adhered to.
Contending that the act as established, cannot be enforced in states that did not give their consent, in line with the provisions of the constitution, they prayed the court to declare the act establishing the EFCC illegal and unconstitutional.
