EDITORIAL
The suit filed by 16 states in Nigeria against the Attorney-General of the Federation has questioned the constitutionality of some anti graft agencies like Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC). At the heart of the dispute lies the contention that the agencies’ enabling laws, rooted in United Nations Conventions, were not in accordance with Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution.
The lawsuit was originally initiated by Kogi State government with 15 other states joining the suit as plaintiffs, while others filed applications for their own suit to be consolidated with the extant matter, making the Attorney-General of the Federation as the sole defendant in the case. The 15 other states joined in the suit marked: SC/CV/178/2023, include Ondo, Edo, Oyo, Ogun, Nassarawa, Kebbi, Katsina, Sokoto, Jigawa, Enugu, Benue, Anambra, Plateau, Cross-River and Niger.
According to the plaintiffs, the federal government cannot control funds appropriated by their respective Houses of Assembly, emphasising the need for state stakeholders’ concurrence in enforcing treaties. This stance is bolstered by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Nwobike V. Federal Republic of Nigeria, which deemed the EFCC Act a product of the United Nations Convention against corruption. However, the defendants assert that state concurrence is unnecessary for the validity of these acts, sparking concerns about the potential undermining of the Constitution.
The EFCC, established in 2002, has been a crucial tool in fighting corruption, recovering billions of dollars and prosecuting high-profile cases. However, its effectiveness has been hindered by political interference, selective prosecution, and institutional hurdles. For instance, critics have accused it of selective prosecution, alleging it’s being used as a tool for political prosecution rather than genuine anti-corruption agency. This perception is exacerbated by instances where individuals with established corruption cases hold influential positions under the current administration, while others face prosecution.
The EFCC’s mode of establishment has contributed to its ineffectiveness in fighting corruption. Until the laws establishing these agencies are reviewed holistically, Nigerians cannot have real anti-graft agencies but tools in the hands of successive Federal Government administrations to deal with opposition and subdue potential threats.
The intense lobbying for states to withdraw from the suit and the suspension of Benue State’s Attorney General underscore the pressure on the Supreme Court judges.
For instance, Anambra, Adamawa, and Ebonyi had initiated a wave of withdrawals from the lawsuit during the Supreme Court hearing on Tuesday. Benue State is reconsidering its position regarding the case while awaiting the judgement and filed its notice of discontinuance on Thursday, followed by Jigawa state. In all, five states have submitted notices of discontinuance in the case at the Supreme Court.
If the court reckoned with the post-hearing notices of discontinuance, the number of plaintiffs will reduce to 17, in addition with Osun State which filed a motion to be consolidated into the suit . The situation in Benue State as regards the suit is a bit interesting after the state’s attorney-general, Fidelis Mynin, decided to join the lawsuit as a co-plaintiff. In a surprising turn of events, Benue State Governor, Hyacinth Alia suspended the attorney general, noting that he joined the suit without obtaining his approval.
Nigerians remain hopeful that the judiciary will uphold its principles of honesty and transparency, as expressed by the new Chief Justice of the Federation, Hon. Justice Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun.
The outcome of this lawsuit will have far-reaching implications on Nigeria’s anti-corruption efforts and the balance of power between federal and state governments. It is imperative that the Supreme Court prioritizes constitutional sanity and ensures that the rule of law prevails.
Nigerian Monitor is of the considered view that if the federal government is confident in the legitimacy of agencies like the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), why are they pressuring governors to withdraw from the suit?
Considering this turn of events, it’s possible that the federal government is trying to avoid a legal precedent that could limit their power or expose potential corruption.
The government’s pressure on governors may also be driven by concerns about losing control over these agencies. If the courts rule in favour of the states, it could lead to increased autonomy for agencies like the EFCC and ICPC, making them more independent and potentially more effective in combating corruption.
Ultimately, the federal government’s actions may undermine the rule of law and perpetuate a culture of impunity. As Human Rights Watch notes, corruption is at the heart of many of Nigeria’s human rights problems, and a strong, independent EFCC is crucial in tackling these issues. The government should prioritize transparency and accountability rather than trying to silence critics.
