Gov Ododo, Others Keep Mum
By Kolawole Ojebisi
The Supreme Court has dismissed the suit instituted by 16 states of the federation challenging the constitutionality of the act establishing the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
The apex court delivered the verdict concerning the suit on Friday.
While delivering the judgement, Justice Uwani Abba-Aji, who presided over a seven-member panel of justices, ruled that, “the EFCC Act, which is not a treaty but a convention, does not need the ratification of the houses of assembly”.
Recall that the Kogi State Government in 2023 had filed the suit against the EFCC, with 18 other states, later joining the suit.
But months later, some states started withdrawing from the suit. As of last week, six states had withdrawn from the suit with Enugu being the most recent and last state to do so before the final verdict.
The first three states being Anambra (ninth plaintiff), Adamawa (16th plaintiff) and Ebonyi (18th plaintiff).
The three states withdrew their suits before the seven-member panel of justices of the apex court on October 22, the day of the hearing.
But the apex court reserved its judgement on that day. Afterwards, Benue and Jigawa filed their separate application for withdrawals.
While Benue filed for withdrawal on October 23, Jigawa filed its own on October 24.
In Benue’s case, state governor, Rev Fr Hyacinth Alia, suspended the state’s Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice and Public Order, Fidelis Mnyim, for not informing him before joining the suit.
Also, the Ogun State government said it was not challenging the constitutionality of the EFCC but was seeking an interpretation of the apex court on the NFIU guidelines on cash withdrawal limit.
While the legal tussle lasted, the states argued that the Supreme Court, in Dr Joseph Nwobike vs. the Federal Republic of Nigeria, held that the United Nations Convention against Corruption was incorporated into the EFCC Establishment Act and in enacting this law in 2004, the provisions of Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, were not followed.
The plaintiffs also claimed that when bringing a convention into Nigerian law, the provisions of Section 12 must be complied with.
According to the plaintiffs, the constitution requires that a majority of state houses of Assembly must agree to the adoption of the convention before laws like the EFCC Act and others can be passed, which they claim was never done.
The states’ argument in their present suit, which they asserted had been corroborated by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned case, was that the law, as enacted, could not be applied to states that did not approve of it, in accordance with the provisions of the Nigerian Constitution.
They, therefore, argued that any institution established under such circumstances should be considered illegal.
But the apex court while putting paid to matter today, faulted the crux of the suit of the plaintiffs’ by saying, “the EFCC Act, which is not a treaty but a convention, does not need the ratification of the houses of assembly”.
