In a significant legal showdown, the Supreme Court of Nigeria has reserved its judgment on a suit brought by 19 state governments challenging the constitutionality of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Establishment Act. The suit, originally initiated by the Kogi State government, questions the legal foundation of the EFCC and related agencies such as the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU) and the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC). The case has attracted considerable attention, as it addresses the balance of powers between federal and state governments in the fight against corruption.
The seven member panel of justices, led by Justice Uwani Abba Aji, reserved judgment after hearing final arguments from the plaintiffs represented by the Attorney General of Kogi State, Abdulwahab Mohammed, SAN and the defendant, Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN. The court will communicate the judgment date to the parties at a later time.
At the heart of the case is the argument made by the 19 states that the EFCC Act, which was enacted in 2004, is unconstitutional. According to the plaintiffs, the EFCC Act is essentially an adaptation of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, but it was not domesticated according to Section 12 of the Nigerian Constitution. This section requires that international treaties be ratified by the majority of Nigeria’s state Houses of Assembly before being enacted into law, a process the plaintiffs argue was bypassed in the creation of the EFCC.
The states, including Kogi, Kebbi, Katsina, Sokoto, Oyo, and others, contend that the EFCC and NFIU have no constitutional authority to investigate or manage the funds of state or local governments. Kogi State's legal team argued that the EFCC's powers encroach on the financial autonomy of states, an issue that goes beyond just law enforcement but touches on the broader relationship between Nigeria’s federal and state governments.
In response, the AGF’s counsel, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, argued that the EFCC Act is backed by Section 15(5) of the 1999 Constitution, which empowers the federal government to fight all forms of corruption. He rejected the claim that the law is invalid due to improper domestication of international conventions.
The case has seen several developments since its filing. During earlier proceedings, the governments of Anambra, Ebonyi, and Adamawa states applied to withdraw from the suit, a request that was granted by the court. This left 19 states as co plaintiffs, consolidating their claims in the suit marked SC/CV/178/2023.
The plaintiffs are asking the Supreme Court to declare that the federal government, through agencies like the EFCC and NFIU, lacks the authority to direct or interfere in the administration of state and local government funds. They argue that these federal agencies should not have the power to investigate, requisition documents, or arrest state officials in matters related to the management of state or local funds.
The outcome of this case could have far reaching implications for Nigeria’s governance, particularly the role and powers of federal agencies in state matters. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, it could significantly limit the EFCC’s ability to combat corruption at the state level, which critics argue could weaken the country’s overall anti corruption efforts.
On the other hand, a judgment in favor of the federal government would reinforce the EFCC’s mandate and strengthen its role in tackling corruption across the country, including within state governments.
As the nation awaits the Supreme Court’s decision, this case highlights the ongoing tension between federal authority and state autonomy, raising important questions about the separation of powers and the future of Nigeria’s fight against corruption.