Supreme Court Dismisses Suit Challenging Constitutionality Of EFCC Filled By 16 States

The other agencies in question are the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) and the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU).

A seven-member panel of justices, in a unanimous judgment, held that the suit lacked merit.

In the lead judgment delivered by Justice Uwani Abba-Aji, the Supreme Court addressed the six issues raised by the plaintiffs in their challenge.
The court ruled that the laws establishing the anti-corruption agencies were validly enacted by the National Assembly within its legislative competence.

The plaintiffs had argued that the EFCC Act, being a product of the United Nations Convention against Corruption, should have been ratified by the majority of state Houses of Assembly.
They referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Dr. Joseph Nwobike v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, which had held that the EFCC Establishment Act was based on a UN convention. They contended that, under Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the majority of states’ Houses of Assembly must approve such international conventions before they are incorporated into Nigerian law.

However, Justice Abba-Aji ruled that the EFCC Act was not a treaty but a convention, and therefore, it did not require ratification by the state Houses of Assembly.

She explained: “The plaintiffs rely on Section 12 of the constitution in their argument. A treaty is an agreement between two or more countries that must be ratified. Conventions, on the other hand, are agreements made by a larger number of nations and only come into force once a significant number of countries have agreed to it. Therefore, the EFCC Act, which is based on a convention, does not need the ratification of the state Houses of Assembly.”

The judge further emphasized that conventions, once agreed upon by members of the international community, allow the National Assembly to enact laws based on them, which are binding on all states in Nigeria.

The Supreme Court also dismissed claims that the NFIU’s guidelines violated the constitution in the management of state funds. Justice Abba-Aji ruled that any law enacted by the National Assembly, such as those related to anti-corruption and money laundering, was binding on all states and could not be overridden by state laws.

“The investigative powers of the EFCC cannot be in conflict with the legislative powers of the state Houses of Assembly,” she added. “I agree with the AGF that the plaintiffs’ arguments, particularly those of the state Houses of Assembly, are not tenable in law.”

The court concluded by ruling in favor of the AGF and dismissing the suit in its entirety.

All other justices agreed with the lead judgment, stating that the issues raised by the states were without merit and should be dismissed.

Justice Abba-Aji had earlier dismissed all objections raised by the Federal Government against the suit. She affirmed that the AGF was the proper and necessary party in the case, as the suit was against the AGF, not any of the anti-corruption agencies.
As the chief law officer of the federation, the AGF has the locus standi to institute actions against anyone, and could be sued in any civil matter involving the government.

She also stated that the dispute between the Federal Government and the states stemmed from the NFIU’s directive, which the states were contesting. As such, the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear the case, and the preliminary objections were dismissed.

Reacting to the judgment, Kogi State’s Attorney-General’s counsel, Abdulwahab Mohammed, SAN, expressed appreciation for the court’s consideration of the issue, which had not been adequately addressed at the Federal High Court or Court of Appeal stages.

Representing the AGF, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, thanked the court for its wisdom, stating that the ruling had permanently settled the legality of the anti-corruption agencies in their fight against corruption.