The Supreme Court has reserved judgment in a case brought by 19 states challenging the legality of the laws establishing the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). The suit, marked SC/CV/178/2023, argues that the EFCC’s Establishment Act, passed in 2004, was improperly enacted without following constitutional procedures.
The plaintiffs contend that Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution mandates that for any international convention, such as the United Nations Convention against Corruption, to become law in Nigeria, the majority of the state Houses of Assembly must approve it. They claim this requirement was not fulfilled, rendering the EFCC Act unconstitutional and its actions potentially illegal.
At the resumed hearing on Tuesday, Imo, Bauchi, and Taraba states joined the suit as co-plaintiffs, while Osun State sought to consolidate its case with the Kogi suit. On the other hand, Anambra, Ebonyi, and Adamawa states withdrew their suits.
During the proceedings, the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, appeared in defense and requested the court’s permission to file a response to the plaintiffs’ new submissions. The court granted this request, allowing the AGF to submit his reply.
Fagbemi argued that the plaintiffs’ case had already been resolved by previous rulings, including the Supreme Court’s decision in AG Ondo v. AG Federation, and urged the court to dismiss the suit.
On behalf of the plaintiffs, Kogi State’s Attorney-General, Mohammed Abdulwahab, SAN, pointed out that the AGF’s latest submissions raised fresh issues, necessitating the plaintiffs to re-file their processes. He emphasized that the plaintiffs’ central argument was based on the Supreme Court’s own ruling in the case of Dr. Joseph Nwobike vs. the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which confirmed that the EFCC Act was derived from the UN Convention against Corruption.
According to Abdulwahab, since the constitutional procedure for incorporating international conventions into Nigerian law was not followed, the EFCC’s establishment was fundamentally flawed.
Abdulwahab highlighted the involvement of Chief Kanu Agabi, SAN, a former Attorney-General who had been instrumental in drafting the EFCC and ICPC laws, as a key figure in the initial case. He reiterated that Agabi had previously confirmed to the court that Section 12 of the Constitution was not adhered to when bringing the convention into Nigerian law.
The plaintiffs urged the court to recognize the unconstitutional foundation of the EFCC and related institutions, arguing that this oversight could create a constitutional crisis. They called for the court to grant all the reliefs sought and award substantial costs in their favor.
Fagbemi, however, countered that the Supreme Court had already settled these issues in previous rulings, including AG Ondo v. AG Federation, and that the court should not depart from its earlier decisions. He called for the dismissal of the suit.
In related developments, Osun, Nasarawa, and Ogun states filed applications to consolidate their suits with that of Kogi, a request granted by the court. The number of states challenging the constitutionality of the EFCC has now risen to 19, with the plaintiffs including Kogi, Kebbi, Katsina, Sokoto, Jigawa, Enugu, Oyo, Benue, Plateau, Cross River, Ondo, Niger, Edo, Bauchi, Imo, Osun, Nasarawa, Ogun, and Taraba. Despite the withdrawal of three states, the case continues to draw significant attention.
The Supreme Court reserved its judgment in the matter, and the legal battle over the constitutionality of the EFCC and related anti-corruption agencies is set to continue.
