Nigeria’s Supreme Court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by 19 states challenging the constitutionality of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC and two other anti-corruption agencies.
The plaintiffs argued that the EFCC’s establishment act was based on a UN Convention Against Corruption, which required compliance with Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution.
However, the Supreme Court ruled that the EFCC Establishment Act did not require ratification by the Houses of Assembly of the 36 states, as it was a convention and not a treaty.
The court’s unanimous decision, led by Justice Uwani Abba-Aji, stated that the National Assembly has the power to make laws from conventions, which are binding on all states in Nigeria.
The court also resolved that the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit, NFIU, guideline did not contravene the Constitution’s provisions on state fund management.
The plaintiffs had claimed that the EFCC’s establishment was invalid due to non-compliance with Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution.
They argued that the majority of state Houses of Assembly must agree to bring the Convention into Nigerian law before passing the EFCC Act.
However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the EFCC’s investigative powers do not conflict with state assembly legislative powers.
The court also emphasized that any act enacted by the National Assembly, such as the NFIU and its guidelines, is binding on all states.
While delivering judgment on Friday, Justice Uwani Abba-Aji, who led a seven-member panel of justices, held that:
“The EFCC Act, which is not a treaty but a Convention, does not need the ratification of the Houses of Assembly”.
“Let me first look at the constitutional provision. The plaintiffs rely on Section 12 of the Constitution in their argument. Treaty is an agreement reached by two or more countries which has to be ratified.
“Convention: Conventions are agreed by a larger number of nations. Conventions only come into force when a larger number of countries agree.
“Therefore, the EFCC Act, which is not a treaty but a Convention does not need the ratification of the Houses of Assembly.
“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 the case of EFCC Establishment Act,” the judge added.
“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 the National Assembly like the NFIU and its guideline, it is binding on all. Any Act that has been competently enacted by the National Assembly cannot be said to be inconsistent.
“Where the National Assembly has enecated several laws on corruption, money laundering, etc, no state has the right to make laws to compete with it. The investigative power of the EFCC cannot be said to be in conflict with legislative powers of the State Assembly.
“I must agree with the AGF that the plaintiffs’ argument – that is, the Houses of Assembly of the plaintiff states – is not tenable in law.
“Since the AGF is assumed to be the chief law officer of the federation, he is by all means the proper and necessary party.
“The AGF has locus standi to institute action against anyone and the AGF can be sued in any civil matter against the government.
“It is clear that the Federal Government has legal tussle with the states based on the directive of the NFIU which the states are contending. The preliminary objection is hereby dismissed,” he ruled.
Cyber Reporters reports that the EFCC was established in 2002 by the National Assembly, and its operations began in 2003.
The agency’s legitimacy was challenged by the 19 states, which also questioned the validity of the Independent Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Commission, ICPC, and the NFIU.
