Supreme Court Reserves Judgment in 19 States’ Suit Challenging EFCC’s Constitutionality
The Supreme Court of Nigeria, on Tuesday, reserved judgment in the suit filed by 19 states challenging the constitutionality of the laws that established the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). The court, after hearing submissions from both parties, indicated that it would communicate the judgment date to all involved parties.
The case, marked SC/CV/178/2023, stems from the states’ argument that the EFCC Establishment Act, which came into force in 2004, was enacted in violation of Section 12 of the Nigerian Constitution. The states contend that the Act was based on a UN Convention against corruption, but that the required constitutional process for bringing an international convention into Nigerian law—specifically, the approval of a majority of state Houses of Assembly—was not followed.
According to the plaintiffs, this omission renders the EFCC Act unconstitutional, and they argue that any institution formed under this law, including the EFCC, should be regarded as illegal in states that did not approve the convention. The suit builds on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in *Dr. Joseph Nwobike v. Federal Republic of Nigeria*, where the court ruled on the need for proper adherence to Section 12 in incorporating international conventions into domestic law.
During Tuesday’s hearing, the number of states challenging the EFCC’s legality increased to 19, though three states—Anambra, Ebonyi, and Adamawa—announced their intention to withdraw from the suit. The court granted their requests to withdraw, removing them from the case. This left 16 states in the suit, including Kogi, Katsina, Kebbi, Sokoto, Jigawa, Oyo, Benue, Enugu, Plateau, Cross River, Ondo, Niger, Edo, Bauchi, Taraba, and Imo.
Imo and Bauchi States also joined the suit as co-plaintiffs on Tuesday, while Osun, Nasarawa, and Ogun States filed motions to consolidate their cases with Kogi’s. The court ruled that the cases of Osun, Nasarawa, and Ogun would be tied to the Kogi suit, pending the outcome of the ongoing legal proceedings.
Read Also:
At the hearing, the Kogi State Attorney-General’s counsel, Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Mohammed Abdulwahab, argued that the EFCC’s creation was flawed from the start. He contended that the EFCC, alongside other bodies like the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU), was established without the constitutional approval required by Section 12, rendering them unconstitutional and invalid. He further pointed out that the law, which was based on the UN Convention, was never properly incorporated into Nigerian law as the Constitution mandates.
The defense, represented by Attorney-General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, also a SAN, countered that prior Supreme Court decisions had already settled the issue and urged the court to dismiss the suit. Fagbemi maintained that the EFCC Act did not require adherence to Section 12, and that the UN Convention was only a guiding framework, not the sole basis for the law. He urged the court not to depart from its earlier rulings, which he argued had addressed the same legal issues.
The case also saw several states file motions for consolidation. The Attorney-General of Osun State, Oluwole Jimi-Bada, applied to consolidate his state’s case with that of Kogi, while Nasarawa and Ogun States followed suit. The court ruled that all three motions for consolidation would align with Kogi’s case, given the overlapping legal arguments.
The withdrawal of Anambra, Ebonyi, and Adamawa was noted without opposition from Fagbemi, who agreed to strike them from the record. The Attorney-General for Ebonyi, Ikenna Nwidagu, and for Anambra, Professor Sylvia Ifemeje, each filed motions for withdrawal, which were granted by the court.
Despite the withdrawals, the legal battle continues, with the remaining 16 states arguing that the EFCC, as it stands, cannot operate legally in those states that did not approve the law. They argue that any institution formed based on the convention, such as the EFCC, is not constitutionally valid, as it was not adopted through the proper legislative processes.
The ruling from the Supreme Court is eagerly awaited, as it will determine the future of the EFCC and similar institutions created under the same framework. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, it could have wide-reaching implications for the structure and legality of anti-corruption agencies in Nigeria.
