The Supreme Court has dismissed a legal suit filed by 16 state attorneys general challenging the constitutionality of the laws establishing three major anti-graft agencies in Nigeria: the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), and the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU).
Case Background
The suit was initiated by the attorneys general of 16 states, who argued that the EFCC, ICPC, and NFIU were illegally constituted, claiming they were not properly ratified by state houses of assembly as required by the Nigerian Constitution.
States involved in the lawsuit included Ondo, Edo, Oyo, Ogun, Nasarawa, Kebbi, Katsina, Sokoto, Jigawa, Enugu, Benue, Anambra, Plateau, Cross River, and Niger. At the resumed hearing on October 22, Imo, Bauchi, and Osun states joined as co-plaintiffs, while Anambra, Ebonyi, and Adamawa states withdrew their participation.
Supreme Court’s Verdict
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Uwani Abba-Aji dismissed the suit, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked merit in their case against the Attorney-General of the Federation. Justice Abba-Aji emphasized that the establishment of the EFCC by the National Assembly does not require ratification from state houses of assembly, as it is not a treaty but a convention.
“The states were completely wrong in asserting that the EFCC, created by an act of the National Assembly, was an illegal entity,” Justice Abba-Aji stated. The panel of seven justices, led by Abba-Aji, upheld the constitutionality of the anti-corruption bodies, affirming their legitimacy under Nigerian law.
Federal Government’s Objections Dismissed
The Supreme Court also dismissed all preliminary objections raised by the Federal Government regarding the states’ suit. Justice Abba-Aji clarified that the case was brought against the Attorney-General of the Federation, not directly against the anti-corruption agencies, granting the Supreme Court the jurisdiction to rule on the matter.
Arguments of the Plaintiffs
The plaintiffs argued that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, rendering any legislation inconsistent with it null and void. They cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Dr. Joseph Nwobike vs. Federal Republic of Nigeria, which they claimed established that the EFCC Act was based on a United Nations Convention against Corruption. They contended that the National Assembly did not follow the provisions of Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution in enacting the EFCC Act, which mandates the approval of state houses of assembly.
According to the plaintiffs, the EFCC Act was improperly integrated into Nigerian law without the required ratification, making the agency’s establishment unconstitutional. They argued that the law should not apply to states that did not endorse it.
EFCC’s Defense
Wilson Uwujaren, Director of Public Affairs for the EFCC, criticized the lawsuit, warning that scrapping the agency would severely undermine Nigeria’s fight against corruption. “Nigeria cannot survive without the EFCC. The level of corruption we face requires an anti-graft agency like ours,” Uwujaren stated during a Channels Television interview on October 21.
He claimed that the states opposing the EFCC’s existence are those feeling the pressure of the agency’s crackdown on financial crimes, adding, “This legal challenge is a distraction driven by vested interests who fear accountability.”
Legal Perspectives on the Controversy
Human rights lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) defended the continued existence of anti-corruption bodies like the EFCC and ICPC. Speaking on Channels Television’s Politics Today on October 20, Falana argued for the autonomy of these institutions from federal government control.
“For me, the ICPC and the EFCC, like the Code of Conduct Tribunal, have become permanent fixtures in our legal framework. Instead of scrapping them, we should focus on measures to enhance their independence,” Falana asserted.
Conversely, Olisa Agbakoba (SAN), a senior advocate, argued in a letter to the National Assembly that the EFCC was “unconstitutionally established,” asserting that the agency’s powers exceeded the legislative authority of the National Assembly.
“The EFCC was set up without due process. It goes beyond the legislative powers granted by the Constitution,” Agbakoba wrote. He expressed satisfaction that several states had taken legal steps to challenge the EFCC’s constitutionality, which he believed would resolve longstanding questions about the agency’s legality.
The Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss the case marks a significant win for Nigeria’s anti-corruption framework, solidifying the legal standing of the EFCC, ICPC, and NFIU. Legal experts and political observers await further reactions from state governments and anti-graft bodies as the implications of the ruling unfold.
This judgment reaffirms the commitment of Nigeria’s judiciary to uphold the constitutionality of anti-corruption agencies and underscores the importance of a robust legal mechanism in the fight against financial crime.
