…Says “Suit Will Deepen True Federalism”
The Society for Rule of Law in Nigeria (SRLN) has expressed concern over the Federal Government’s response to the Supreme Court suit filed by several states contesting the establishment of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offenses Commission (ICPC), and the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU).
In a statement issued on Monday by its Coordinator, Dr. Chima Ubeku, the group labeled the Federal Government’s reliance on emotional appeals and intimidation tactics against the states as perplexing. They condemned the insinuation in the government’s objection that the states, which are simply seeking to strengthen true federalism in Nigeria, were acting out of animosity toward the three anti-corruption agencies.
The plaintiffs in Suit Number SC/178/2023 include the governments of Kogi, Kebbi, Katsina, Sokoto, Jigawa, Enugu, Oyo, Benue, Anambra, Plateau, Cross River, Ondo, Niger, Edo, Bauchi, Adamawa, Taraba, Ebonyi, and Imo. Meanwhile, states like Nasarawa and Ogun, also parties to the suit, are specifically contesting the NFIU’s cash withdrawal limit guidelines.
The plaintiffs argue that the Federal Government cannot control funds allocated by the Houses of Assembly of the plaintiff states and are asking the Supreme Court to declare the EFCC, ICPC, NFIU, and the Proceeds of Crime Act unconstitutional. They assert that these entities, founded on United Nations conventions and protocols, lacked ratification by the Houses of Assembly as mandated by Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution.
However, in a preliminary objection dated October 17, 2024, filed by the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, through a team led by the Director of Civil Appeals, Ministry of Justice, T.A. Gazali, SAN, the Federal Government has urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case.
The AGF contended that the plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the Federal Government’s actions through agencies like the EFCC and the ICPC.
In response, SRLN commended the states involved in the suit for their commitment to fostering true federalism in Nigeria. The group emphasized that instead of perceiving the suit as an affront, the federal government should collaborate with the states to ensure the Supreme Court upholds the Constitution and paves the way for authentic federalism.
They stated: Nigeria is a federation created by the Constitution, which delineates distinct functions for the federating units. The federal government, as one of these units, should not act as a godfather while other units are treated as dependents.
Crucially, institutions fighting corruption in Nigeria must operate on a foundation of law, rather than on sentiments or emotions. The most significant corruption may stem from disregarding the Constitution by establishing anti-corruption agencies without full compliance with its provisions.
Consequently, instead of framing the plaintiff states as adversaries of the anti-corruption agencies, the federal government should focus on its primary responsibility: safeguarding the nation’s Constitution.
The 1999 Constitution clearly delineates which areas the National Assembly has exclusive authority to legislate, the areas reserved for states, and the shared legislative powers.
“It is evident that the Acts in dispute, grounded in United Nations conventions and protocols, do not fall within any of these categories. Therefore, adherence to Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution is a mandatory requirement.
In its initial defense of the suit, the AGF did not refute that the Acts were based on United Nations conventions; he merely stated that state concurrence as stakeholders was unnecessary for the validity of the Acts, implying that compliance with Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution was also unnecessary.
We believe the Supreme Court should adjudicate this suit fairly, without branding the plaintiffs as adversaries of the Federal Government’s anti-corruption agencies. Rather than attempting to sustain the apparent illegality of the agencies’ establishment, the federal government should rectify these errors and ensure their proper establishment in accordance with the Constitution.
