₦airaland Forum

In a ruling that has sent ripples through Nigeria’s legal and governance spheres, the Supreme Court nullified the enforcement of the National Lottery Act across the 36 states of the federation, declaring that only state assemblies have the powers to legislate on lottery and gaming businesses. The court emphasized that the National Assembly (NASS) can only legislate for the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) and cannot impose laws in states on matters outside the exclusive legislative list.

The judgment has raised questions about consistency in the apex court’s interpretation of legislative authority. Critics point out a seeming contradiction with previous rulings, such as those upholding the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Act. Despite states having internal anti-corruption agencies, the EFCC Act is enforced nationwide, with the court affirming the NASS's authority to legislate broadly in that context.

A political analyst, Dr. Peter Adebola, expressed concern over the apparent inconsistency. “This judgment complicates an already challenging understanding of legislative powers in Nigeria. If the NASS can create binding laws like the EFCC Act that operate in all states, why is the National Lottery Act treated differently? The judiciary owes the public a coherent explanation,” he remarked.

Many have called for a rescue of the judiciary from what they describe as a growing lack of clarity. Lawyers and governance experts argue that conflicting judgments erode public trust and create confusion for lawmakers, law enforcement agencies, and the general public.

“The judiciary must be a beacon of clarity,” said a senior advocate who requested anonymity. “If we cannot rely on the apex court to give consistent rulings, the legal system will become a playground of arbitrary interpretations.”

As states begin adjusting their laws to reflect the judgment, the ruling reignites the debate over the balance of power between federal and state governments, leaving stakeholders wondering if this is the beginning of further legal battles on legislative authority in Nigeria.

What Okowa and Obaseki have stolen

I commend them for they agility

I want them to investigate them well well and charge them to court if they have enough evidence

But

The EFCC chairman has to discharge the burden of impartiality

The EFCC has a huge file on Wike

The previous EFCC chairman told us how Wike authorized the withdrawal of 117 billion naira from Rivers treasury in cash

What is the this EFCC chairman waiting for?

The EFCC has a huge file on Matawalle

The previous EFCC chairman had told us that the agency had huge a huge cache of evidence against Matawalle

The present Zamfara governor has confirmed it

What is this EFCC chairman waiting for?

The EFCC has evidence against Akpabio

The previous EFCC chairman told us the agency had filth on Akpabio

What's the EFCC chairman waiting for?

It's good to go against corrupt politicians

It's selective justice to go against some

While leaving apparent sacred cows against whom evidence has been accumulated

If an EFCC chairman announces that the agency has evidence against a politician

A new EFCC chairman cannot sweep it under the carpet and retain the confidence of the public

The EFCC should be conscious of its institutional reputation

The chairman is a born again Christian

He must tell the public at every opportunity what he is doing with the cases of suspected corrupt politicians who are friends of the president

Especially those in the cabinet

All the above named politicians are innocent until proven guilty before a competent court

Going after opposition former governors

While avoiding former governors whom the public believes are needed for the president's relection campaign is cowardly and corrupt policing

If the EFCC chairman cannot arrest a former Rivers governor because the court has barred the EFCC from investigating Rivers

Then the EFCC must leave all other states until the CJN and the Supreme Court tell us if EFCC was created only for petty Yahoo Yahoo boys

What is good for the goose is good for the gander

If we think the war against corruption will inconvenience the president's men

Then let's postpone it jor

After all we are a banana republic

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is facing backlash after inviting journalists to yet another media briefing, set for Thursday, October 31, 2024, at 9:30 am at its headquarters. While the agency claims it will provide updates on its recent activities, critics are questioning whether the EFCC is focusing too heavily on publicity rather than genuine anti-corruption efforts. Much of the criticism stems from the agency’s ongoing media coverage of the investigation into Yahaya Bello, which many claim is nothing more than a political “witch hunt.”

Concerns have been mounting over what some describe as the EFCC’s obsession with public perception and its tendency to engage in “media trials.” This strategy, often involving publicizing cases before thorough investigations are complete, has raised questions about the agency's political motives. The constant press briefings on Yahaya Bello’s case have particularly fueled suspicions, leading many to wonder if the EFCC is prioritizing sensational headlines over due process.

Unlike professional bodies that conduct investigations discreetly, the EFCC’s approach frequently comes across as selective and potentially biased. By holding frequent press events and publicizing high-profile cases like that of Bello, the agency risks damaging reputations without proper basis. Critics argue that true anti-corruption work should be grounded in impartiality, consistency, and a commitment to justice, not public spectacle. The EFCC’s media-driven actions are causing a growing perception that the agency is a political tool rather than a neutral force against corruption.

Comparisons have been drawn to international anti-corruption bodies, such as the UK’s Serious Fraud Office, which avoids discussing cases publicly until evidence is well-substantiated. In contrast, the EFCC’s frequent media updates—often turning preliminary investigations into public events—leave it vulnerable to accusations of bias, especially when cases appear to target political opposition figures like Bello.

As the EFCC’s press conferences continue, social media is abuzz with criticism of its tactics. Nigerians are asking whether the agency has sacrificed its anti-graft mission for the allure of the spotlight. For an organization tasked with upholding justice, a return to professionalism and impartiality seems crucial if it hopes to regain public trust and effectively address the nation’s corruption issues.

Written by Dr. John Inalegwu
Political Analyst, Abuja

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has invited journalists to another media conference, set for Thursday, October 31, 2024, at 9:30 am at its headquarters. While the EFCC has promised updates on its recent activities, critics are questioning whether the agency is becoming more of a publicity machine than an anti-graft body, calling into question its commitment to its primary mission.

Concerns have been mounting over what some describe as the EFCC’s obsession with public perception. Instead of diligently investigating and prosecuting financial crimes behind the scenes, the agency has increasingly opted to engage in “media trials.” This strategy, often involving publicizing cases before thorough investigations are complete, has raised questions about political motives. Many argue that this approach suggests an interest in shaping public opinion rather than adhering to due process. This kind of public shaming, particularly aimed at high-profile figures, has led many to wonder if the EFCC is straying from its original purpose in favor of sensational headlines.

Unlike professional bodies, which conduct investigations ethically and discretely, the EFCC’s approach often comes across as selective and potentially biased. Experts believe that the agency’s penchant for public displays and press releases may be compromising its credibility. True anti-corruption work, they argue, is grounded in impartiality, consistency, and a commitment to justice, not spectacle. In contrast, the EFCC's media-driven actions leave it vulnerable to accusations of political bias, creating a perception of the agency as a tool for targeting particular individuals, rather than a force for fighting corruption in Nigeria.

Comparisons have been drawn with international anti-graft organizations, like the UK’s Serious Fraud Office, which conducts investigations privately and refrains from discussing cases publicly until evidence is clear. By contrast, the EFCC's approach has been to hold frequent press conferences, often turning preliminary investigations into media events that linger in public opinion long before any official verdict. This method not only risks damaging reputations without proper basis but also calls the agency’s motivations into question, especially when cases seem to center on high-profile figures connected to political opposition.

With each new media event, the EFCC faces increasing scrutiny over its tactics and accountability. As the agency continues to prioritize press events, Nigerians are left asking whether the EFCC has sacrificed its anti-graft mission for the lure of the spotlight. For an agency tasked with upholding justice and fighting corruption, a return to professionalism and impartiality seems critical if it hopes to regain public trust and effectively address Nigeria’s complex corruption issues.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has once again called the press to a media conference, inviting journalists to its headquarters on Thursday, October 31, 2024. Scheduled to begin at 9:30 am, this event will be held on the first floor of the EFCC HQ and aims to update the media on the agency’s recent activities. However, critics are questioning whether these frequent press engagements indicate a troubling shift in focus, suggesting that the EFCC has transformed from an anti-corruption agency into a media organization more concerned with its image than with rooting out financial misconduct.

Many observers have voiced disappointment, asserting that the EFCC's preoccupation with media appearances and public statements has diverted it from its core mission. Rather than undertaking thorough investigations and prosecuting cases with integrity, the agency has often opted for "media trials" that seem designed to shame and smear rather than serve justice. In these instances, suspects are paraded and their charges publicized before due process is complete, a strategy that some argue is politically motivated. Critics suggest that the EFCC has devolved into a platform for "media prosecution," where high-profile figures, sometimes tied to political opposition, are publicly disgraced without substantial evidence or fair trial.

Professional bodies have raised concerns about the lack of thorough investigative standards and due process. Unlike professional organizations that uphold ethical guidelines, ensuring transparent, unbiased investigations, the EFCC has been accused of selectively targeting individuals in ways that seem intended for public consumption rather than legal accountability. Many legal experts believe this approach undermines the institution’s credibility, as genuine anti-corruption work requires consistency, impartiality, and professionalism.

Furthermore, the EFCC’s approach contrasts starkly with how anti-graft agencies in other countries operate. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) carries out its work with minimal publicity until cases are fully investigated, allowing the courts to determine guilt without the influence of public opinion. The EFCC's media-centric approach, however, has frequently involved targeting notable individuals and organizations with sensational accusations that never see the inside of a courtroom, leaving lingering questions over the integrity and motivations behind such announcements.

The EFCC's repeated use of media briefings and press releases has led some to question whether the agency is deliberately creating a narrative rather than pursuing substantive reforms. In a country where accountability is paramount, the focus on press conferences instead of on investigative rigor and results has left the public skeptical of the EFCC’s agenda. Without a strong shift toward fair and independent investigations, the perception grows that the agency is less an anti-graft watchdog and more a tool for political maneuvering, one that has, disappointingly, turned into a platform for spectacle rather than substantive reform in Nigeria’s fight against corruption.

I just read a report which credits my dear brother and presidential spokesman, Bayo Onanuga, with stating in an interview with Laolu Akande that the former Governor of Kogi State, Governor Yahaya Bello, is hiding "under the agbada" of his successor, Governor Usman Ododo.

From the report, it appears, Akande had asked Onanuga why the police cannot assist the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, to effect Yahaya Bello's arrest, which then elicited Onanuga's quite ridiculous reply.

Both Onanuga and Akande are seasoned and quite accomplished journalists but apparently neither is a lawyer, hence their advertisement of their crass ignorance of law and the judicial process.

First of all, a person in court cannot be said to be hiding under anything unless one wants to insinuate that it is possible to hide under the law - Yahaya Bello is in court trying to enforce his fundamental human rights and therefore cannot be deemed to be hiding from the same law he is aiming to avail himself of.

I can't imagine what professional incompetence would have induced Akande to frame his query to Onanuga in the manner he is reported to have done but it is most dishonest and disingenuous of him to pretend that he does not know that the same Yahaya Bello had gone to the headquarters of the EFCC, was told to go home, only for the same EFCC to come to a location where he was, at dead of night, and request him to stage a fake arrest for their twisted purposes.

Contrary to the rather perplexing insinuations of Onanuga, former Governor Yahaya Bello is most certainly not hiding under "the agbada" of anybody but is firmly under the protection of the law, being a litigant in a pending case in court.

That is quite apart from the fact that the EFCC has clearly decomposed into a political thug for hire to politicians who have scores to settle with their political opponents under the guise of fighting corruption, when the EFCC, itself, is probably the most corrupt agency in the entire country.

I don't know why instead of interrogating how come the EFCC would not interrogate someone they had declared wanted, who then showed up at their headquarters and they asked him to go home wasn't Akande's priority but instead he chose to tilt his intervention towards trying to gaslight his audience to buy into nonsense that the same person is howsoever running from the law.

I can't imagine why Bayo Onanuga is so obsessed with Yahaya Bello that instead of leaving his matter for the courts to decide, he keeps tactlessly intervening thereonto with the impression that our President, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, is actually the one behind former Governor Bello's travails.

Yahaya Bello had hitherto expressed concern for the genuineness of the case against him and had privately voiced deep suspicion that it was just a ruse to harm him.

Given the show of shame on the part of the EFCC when he lawfully presented himself at their headquarters and what transpired afterwards, he is perfectly entitled to wait for the judgement of the apex court before taking any other decision.

We are a country of laws - Governor Yahaya Bello is in court and therefore before the law, unlike the likes of Bayo Onanuga, Laolu Akande and their cohorts who obviously aim to oust the jurisdiction of the courts and resort to self-help in the court of public opinion.


Onokpasa, a lawyer, is Chairman Tinubu Media Support Group, TMSG, and writes from Abuja.

Dr. Olisa Agbakoba, former President of Nigeria Bar Association (NBA), has written to the National Assembly over constitutional issues related to law enforcement agencies in Nigeria and factors inhibiting the government’s objective of abolishing corruption as stated in Section 13 of the Constitution.

In two separate letters to the Senate and House of Representatives, dated October 14, 2024, he said the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission was an unlawful organisation, which he believed was “unconstitutionally established”.

“I very strongly believe the EFCC is unconstitutionally established. The powers under which it was established go beyond the powers of the National Assembly. The EFCC is an unlawful organization,” Agbakoba, a former President of the Nigerian Bar Association, said.

The letters were addressed separately to the Deputy Senate President, Senator Barau Jibrin; and Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Hon. Benjamin Kalu. The Deputy Speaker doubles as the Chairman, House Committee on Constitution Review, while Senator Jibrin is Chairman, Senate Committee on Constitution Review.

Agbakoba noted that he was delighted to note that many states had finally taken it upon themselves to challenge the constitutionality of the EFCC, saying, “This will put to rest the question relating to the validity of the EFCC.”

“I write to draw attention to certain constitutional issues on matters related to law enforcement agencies. As you are obviously aware, the fundamental objective of the government is to abolish corruption. But from my observation, there is no harmony amongst law enforcement agencies on corruption. They all appear to be working at cross purposes.

“This has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in so many cases. The Supreme Court has consistently sanctioned the EFCC for its conduct and questioned if the EFCC can in fact validly do what it does. I will go further to say that I very strongly believe the EFCC is unconstitutionally established. The powers under which it was established go beyond the powers of the National Assembly. The EFCC is an unlawful organization.

“I am very delighted to note that many states have finally taken it upon themselves to challenge the constitutionality of the EFCC. This will put to rest the question relating to the validity of the EFCC. Whilst we await the decision of the Supreme Court as the final court on the matter, I respectfully request that the Senate convene a public hearing to consider these constitutional issues.

“Such a hearing would provide an invaluable platform for stakeholders to discuss the reforms needed to strengthen Nigeria’s legal and institutional frameworks for law enforcement and anti-corruption, which will meet the stated and laudable objective of the government to abolish corruption as stated in Section 13 of the Constitution.

“I trust that, under your capable leadership, the Senate Constitution Review Committee will give these matters urgent attention in the interest of our nation’s development.

“Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. I look forward to your response.”


The letter to the Deputy Senate President, titled, “Urgent Legislative Attention on Constitutional Reforms Relating to Law Enforcement Agencies and Anti-Corruption Efforts”, reads: “I commend you for the remarkable leadership you have demonstrated as Chairman, Senate Constitution Review Committee, particularly in advancing the government’s reform agenda through a robust constitutional framework. Your efforts to strengthen the legal infrastructure underpinning the nation’s development programs are indeed commendable.

Dele Oyewale, spokesman of EFCC, could not be reached for comments as of the time of filing this report as multiple attempts to reach him via telephone did not yield result.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eou5sv67AJk?si=5KAT_3CQ9iEMcQqT

On October 22, just days away, the Supreme Court would be hearing a suit filed by no fewer than 16 state governments challenging the constitutionality of the laws establishing the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and two other anti-graft agencies.

Now, all eyes have shifted to the Supreme Court, which to be fair, has in the matter of local government autonomy, showed a radical bent to strengthen the weak ligaments holding the nation’s democratic structure. Nigerians expect such uncompromising judicial exposition in the instant case challenging the legality of EFCC and other agencies.

On face value, Nigerians should wholly welcome the establishment of anti-corruption agencies like the EFCC, which was established in 2003 via an Act of parliament and became operational in 2004. But activities of the EFCC and other anti-graft agencies have continued to tend towards promoting corruption rather than mitigating it. Till this day, EFCC is largely perceived as a witch-hunt tool in the hands of those in power, especially the sitting president at any given time.

Worst of it all, neither the EFCC nor ICPC and others has, in real terms, advanced the fight against corruption. Despite the preponderance of these anti-corruption laws in the country, Nigeria continues to rank high in the global corruption index. Currently, Nigeria ranks 145 out of 180 countries, meaning she is among the ignoble class of most corrupt nations.

Nigeria ranked high before the EFCC Act and has continued to rank high a good two decades later. Many lawyers, scholars and laymen have advanced reasons why corruption thrives in the country despite the existence of EFCC. To some, EFCC is itself a nest of corruption that needs to be dismantled structurally to make it efficient.

For others, the EFCC operates illegally having been cobbled hurriedly against the grains of the Nigeria Constitution. Yet, to some, the Act setting up the EFCC needs to be reworked to conform to due process and basic fundamentals and requirements of law-making in a federation with federating units (the states). This category of persons argues that EFCC Act was foisted on the people without input from State Assemblies.

It was no surprise, therefore, that no fewer than 16 state governments (with prospects of more state governments joining) have approached the Supreme Court for adjudication on whether the enactment of the EFCC Act followed due process as required by the Constitution.

Already, a seven-member panel led by Justice Uwani Abba-Aji has commenced action on the suit by fixing October 22 as the date for hearing. This was after the states were joined as co-plaintiffs and leave consequently granted for consolidation of the case.

The suit was originally filed by Kogi State government through its Attorney General (AG), but it has turned out a trigger because it encouraged other states to step out to challenge the legality of the anti-graft body.

Members, violated section 23 (3) CBN Act, among other infringements on citizens’ rights. At the end, the Supreme Court restored sanity in the system by not extending the validity of the old naira notes as legal tender but also ruling that both the old and new notes should co-exist as valid legal tenders. The state governments won, a victory widely celebrated by Nigerians.

The extant state governments’ case against the constitutionality of the EFCC and others represents another milestone that would strengthen or weaken the democratic foundation of Nigeria as a true Federation. This explains the excitement and the reason why all eyes are rivetted towards the wise seven-member panel of the Supreme Court starting from October 22. It promises to be another legal firework that would test the independence, integrity and courage of the judiciary, in this case the Supreme Court.

Every right-thinking Nigerian should salute the courage of the 16 state governments who have taken it upon themselves to test our laws, and by that very act, help to deepen the nation’s democracy.

On October 22, just days away, the Supreme Court would be hearing a suit filed by no fewer than 16 state governments challenging the constitutionality of the laws establishing the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and two other anti-graft agencies.

Now, all eyes have shifted to the Supreme Court, which to be fair, has in the matter of local government autonomy, showed a radical bent to strengthen the weak ligaments holding the nation’s democratic structure. Nigerians expect such uncompromising judicial exposition in the instant case challenging the legality of EFCC and other agencies.

On face value, Nigerians should wholly welcome the establishment of anti-corruption agencies like the EFCC, which was established in 2003 via an Act of parliament and became operational in 2004. But activities of the EFCC and other anti-graft agencies have continued to tend towards promoting corruption rather than mitigating it. Till this day, EFCC is largely perceived as a witch-hunt tool in the hands of those in power, especially the sitting president at any given time.

Worst of it all, neither the EFCC nor ICPC and others has, in real terms, advanced the fight against corruption. Despite the preponderance of these anti-corruption laws in the country, Nigeria continues to rank high in the global corruption index. Currently, Nigeria ranks 145 out of 180 countries, meaning she is among the ignoble class of most corrupt nations.

Nigeria ranked high before the EFCC Act and has continued to rank high a good two decades later. Many lawyers, scholars and laymen have advanced reasons why corruption thrives in the country despite the existence of EFCC. To some, EFCC is itself a nest of corruption that needs to be dismantled structurally to make it efficient.

For others, the EFCC operates illegally having been cobbled hurriedly against the grains of the Nigeria Constitution. Yet, to some, the Act setting up the EFCC needs to be reworked to conform to due process and basic fundamentals and requirements of law-making in a federation with federating units (the states). This category of persons argues that EFCC Act was foisted on the people without input from State Assemblies.

It was no surprise, therefore, that no fewer than 16 state governments (with prospects of more state governments joining) have approached the Supreme Court for adjudication on whether the enactment of the EFCC Act followed due process as required by the Constitution.

Already, a seven-member panel led by Justice Uwani Abba-Aji has commenced action on the suit by fixing October 22 as the date for hearing. This was after the states were joined as co-plaintiffs and leave consequently granted for consolidation of the case.

The suit was originally filed by Kogi State government through its Attorney General (AG), but it has turned out a trigger because it encouraged other states to step out to challenge the legality of the anti-graft body.

The states that joined in the suit marked: SC/CV/178/2023, are Katsina, Sokoto, Jigawa, Ondo, Edo, Oyo, Ogun, Nasarawa, Kebbi, Enugu, Benue, Anambra, Plateau, Cross River and Niger. The argument of the state governments was based on the fact that the enactment of the EFCC Act grossly undermined the powers and rights of the states as federating units with functional Houses of Assembly none of which was privy or contributed to the enactment of the EFCC Act.

The 16 states premised their argument on the fact that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land hence any law that is inconsistent with it is a nullity and should be so declared.

The state governments cited the case of Dr. Joseph Nwobike Vs Federal Republic of Nigeria, wherein the Supreme Court held that it was a UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) that the National Assembly converted into the EFCC Establishment Act and that in enacting this law in 2004, the provisions of Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, were not followed.

Subsection three(3) of section 12 states that “a bill of the National Assembly passed pursuant to the provisions of subsection (2) of the section shall not be presented to the President for assent, and shall not be enacted, unless it is ratified by a majority of all the Houses of Assembly in the Federation.”

The referenced subsection (2) states that “the National Assembly may make laws for the Federation or any part thereof with respect to matters not included in the Exclusive Legislative List for the purpose of implementing a treaty,” which in this case is the UNCAC, a treaty Nigeria ratified since 14 December 2004 from which the EFCC Act took its root.

The argument of the state government was that, in bringing a convention into the Nigerian law, the provision of Section 12 must be complied with. The 16 state governments averred that the provision of the Constitution demands that a majority of the states’ Houses of Assembly shall agree to bring the convention into Nigeria before passing the EFCC Act as well as others, a requirement that was never met and procedure that was never followed.

Whether intended or not, what the state government’s suit seeks to achieve is to establish the propriety or otherwise of Nigeria being a true Federation that recognises the place and role of the federating units (the states). It is a throwback to the Naira redesign suit between 16 state governments (from an initial three state governments: Kaduna, Kogi, and Zamfara, that approached the Supreme Court on February 22, 2023 seeking to challenge the naira redesign policy of the Federal Government which brought insufferable hardship on the people.

The state governments argued that approval of the policy by President Buhari without consultation with National Economic Council, which has state governors as members, violated section 23 (3) CBN Act, among other infringements on citizens’ rights. At the end, the Supreme Court restored sanity in the system by not extending the validity of the old naira notes as legal tender but also ruling that both the old and new notes should co-exist as valid legal tenders. The state governments won, a victory widely celebrated by Nigerians.

The extant state governments’ case against the constitutionality of the EFCC and others represents another milestone that would strengthen or weaken the democratic foundation of Nigeria as a true Federation. This explains the excitement and the reason why all eyes are rivetted towards the wise seven-member panel of the Supreme Court starting from October 22. It promises to be another legal firework that would test the independence, integrity and courage of the judiciary, in this case the Supreme Court.

Every right-thinking Nigerian should salute the courage of the 16 state governments who have taken it upon themselves to test our laws, and by that very act, help to deepen the nation’s democracy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0XeacCCgo?si=cyHnRheOn9_13cOW

The crux of the suit by 16 states Vs. Attorney-General of the Federation.


1. The Contention of the Plaintiffs in Suit No SC/178/2023 is that the Federal Government cannot under any guise control funds appropriated by Houses of Assembly of the Plaintiffs.

2. The Plaintiffs are also contesting the Constitutionality of the EFCC Act, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nwobike V. Federal Republic of Nigeria, that the EFCC Act was based on a United Nations Convention against corruption, same having not been ratified in line with Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution ( as amended ).

3. The Plaintiffs are therefore asking the Supreme Court to nullify the EFCC, ICPC, NFIU and Proceeds of Crime Act,  all rooted in United Nations Convention and protocol, having not been ratified by the Houses of Assembly of the Plaintiffs in line with Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution.

Section 12 (1) of the Constitution says: "No treaty between the Federation and any other country shall have the force of law except to the extent to which any such treaty has been enacted into law by the National Assembly.

"(2) The National Assembly may make laws for the Federation or any part thereof with respect to matters not included in the Executive Legislative List for the purpose of implementing a treaty.

"(3) A Bill for an Act of the National Assembly passed pursuant to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall not be presented to the President for assent, and shall not be enacted unless it is ratified by a majority of all the Houses of Assembly in the Federation.

4. For instance, the Supreme Court found as a fact in the case of Nwobike V. Federal Republic of Nigeria that the EFCC Act is a product of the United Nations Convention against corruption. But the position of the Plaintiffs in the suit is that the EFCC Act arising from the UN Convention, being an item not contained in the exclusive legislative list, recourse should have been had to States as stakeholders in the Federation in line with Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution.

5. The 1999 Constitution is very clear on the areas the National Assembly has exclusive preserve to make laws, the areas the States have and the areas both the National and State assemblies share legislative powers.The Acts in dispute, being rooted in UN Convention and protocol do not fall on any of those categories, as a result of which compliance with Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution was a mandatory requirement. Failure to comply with Section 12 of the Constitution before the enactment of the acts was fatal.

6. The Defendant to the suit, the Attorney General of the Federation on the other hand, did not deny that the Acts were rooted in the United Nations Convention but that the concurrence of States of the Federation as stakeholders was not necessary for the validity of the Acts. By this, they meant that compliance with Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution was not necessary for the validity of the Acts. This is a strange argument. By this, the defendants also curiously implied that the findings of the Supreme Court in Nwobike  V. Federal Republic of Nigeria that the UN Convention gave birth to the Acts was not relevant.

POLITICAL ANGLE

1. It is feared that owing to the Constitutional significance of the suit, which could ultimately see the exit of the affected agencies, their laws having not been rooted in the 1999 Constitution, agents of the Federal Government could be making frantic moves to interfere and put pressure on the Supreme Court not to do the right thing as far as this suit is concerned.

2. However, Nigerians are optimistic that the apex Court would rise to the occasion as it did on many occasions in the past.

3. This hope is strengthened by the inaugural speech of the New head of the Judiciary, Hon. Justice Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere – Ekun ( GCON ), where she said, "Under my leadership, the Judiciary would adhere to the principles of honesty,  transparency and integrity and that independence of the judiciary is always a topical issue...... at the Supreme Court. For instance, our judgments are free from external influence. While it is essential for the judiciary, as the third arm of government, to maintain good working relationships with the executive and legislative branches, this should not be misconstrued as subservience.

4. "This is a new dawn and a new era in the Nigerian Judiciary. I wish to assure my fellow Nigerian citizens that we are committed to working more diligently to improve public perception of the Nigerian Judiciary.

"Over the years, various factors have contributed to the negative image of the Judiciary. However, we are determined to change this narrative and make the Judiciary a source of pride for all Nigerians. When the legal compass of a Nation falters, everything suffers,including public and international perception ......’’’.

In a 2010 assessment report, the US-based group, Human Rights Watch (HRW), posited that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) was envisaged to tackle corrupt politicians and public sector fraud effectively, but has contrary to expectations, continued to "reward rather than punish corruption".

Coming just seven years after the establishment of the anti-corruption agency, HRW’s early verdict seemed a clairvoyant perception that has deepened over the years. Although a product of a United Nations Convention, the enthusiasm at the time to nip corruption persuaded the state governors to overlook what was supposed to be an established path to building a strong and enduring institution.

As a strategic agency with a national jurisdiction, the decision to overlook the error may have been inspired by hope that the EFCC may evolve into an independent organization led and run by persons that shared a common desire to chart a firm path where public office holders will be held accountable without fear or favour.
 
It may have started fairly well under its pioneer chairman, Nuhu Ribadu. But sooner rather than later, it became clear that politicians with views out of sync with those of Aso Rock chief occupant became the prime targets of its operatives. The still-born attempt to engineer a third term for then President Olusegun Obasanjo through a constitutional amendment turned the EFCC into an enforcer against politicians, especially members of the National Assembly where the constitutional immunity for then Vice President Atiku Abubakar and state governors shielded them from the arm-twisting that was generously applied to beat dissenting politicians into line.

At the end of Obasanjo’s second term and the ouster of Ribadu under controversial circumstances, EFCC shed whatever remained of its toga of independence and became a full-fledged tool at the disposal of the tenant of Aso Rock. It became a theatre of hysteria and a potent tool of vendetta without pretence. What with the comical manner Chairman of Globacom, Mike Adenuga, was chased out of Nigeria to Ghana and later Europe;  the gestapo-style bid to arrest former governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello, not forgetting the invasion of the offices of Dangote Group in search of non-existent documents just to spite its President Aliko Dangote.

Yet, in the midst of all this and many more, nobody bothered to inquire into how the anti-graft agency was birthed. Was the infraction-burdened commission itself a child of Constitutional infraction? This is the matter before a seven-man panel of Supreme Court justices, led by Justice Uwani Abba-Aji. They are to adjudicate on a case first brought before the apex court by Kogi state through its Attorney-General. A good 15 other states have joined in the consolidated suit which seeks to determine whether the EFCC Bill followed due process of the law, in this case the Constitution, before it became an Act of Parliament. Hearing on the matter has been fixed for October 22.

The states that joined in the suit marked: SC/CV/178/2023, are Katsina, Sokoto, Jigawa, Ondo, Edo, Oyo, Ogun, Nasarawa, Kebbi, Enugu, Benue, Anambra, Plateau, Cross River and Niger. Their argument is that the enactment of the EFCC Act grossly undermined the powers and rights of the states as federating units within a Federation. The states have functional Houses of Assembly but the input of these State Assemblies was not sought in the course of the enactment of the EFCC Act as required by the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

This is a strong ground because it borders on Constitutional abuse.
The state governments are relying on the case of Dr. Joseph Nwobike Vs Federal Republic of Nigeria, wherein the Supreme Court held that it was a UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) that the National Assembly converted into the EFCC Establishment Act and that in enacting this law in 2004, the provisions of Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, were not followed.

The state governments argued that in transforming a convention into Nigerian law, the provision of Section 12 must be complied with. The 16 state governments assert that the provision of the Constitution demands that a majority of the states’ Houses of Assembly shall agree to bring the UN Convention into Nigeria before passing the EFCC Act or any other such law. They maintain that this critical requirement that underscores the sovereignty of Nigeria as a self-governing entity was never met neither was the constitutional procedure followed.

For the avoidance of doubt, section 12, subsection (2)  of the Constitution states that “the National Assembly may make laws for the Federation or any part thereof with respect to matters not included in the Exclusive Legislative List for the purpose of implementing a treaty,” which in this case is the UNCAC, a treaty Nigeria ratified since 14 December 2004 from which the EFCC Act was enacted at the whim of the Executive and the National Assembly without the concordance and ratification from the state Assembles.

Subsection three(3) of section 12 states that “a bill of the National Assembly passed pursuant to the provisions of subsection (2) of the section shall not be presented to the President for assent, and shall not be enacted, unless it is ratified by a majority of all the Houses of Assembly in the Federation.”

The fact that 15 states have joined Kogi in challenging the legality of the process that birthed the EFCC across party and regional lines illustrates the common challenges states face when they hold contrary views with the occupant of Aso Rock. In the prayers brought before the Supreme Court, their major desire is not to be shielded from prosecution but for the process not to be activated at the whim and caprice of the party at the centre or the President at any point in time. The reality of imperial presidency is one of the major impediments to a functional federal structure. Despite being heads of sub-national governments, state governors still face the prospect of arbitrary persecution if they are not in the president’s good book.

The suit before the Supreme Court, if successful and should be, may open the door to the resolution of some contentious issues and proposed legislations that are emasculating the states and the citizens. One of such is the proposal for the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to take over the conduct of local government elections as well as the criteria for choosing its chairman and national commissioners. With every electoral cycle, the overbearing power and influence of the presidency in conducting credible elections become more apparent. The recent gubernatorial election in Edo State is sticking out like a sore thumb.

Above all, what the suit seeks to achieve is to establish that Nigeria is a true Federation hence its statutes including Acts of Parliament must respect the constitutional roles and relevance of the federating units, the states.

Dr (Mrs) Ochioma, political strategy consultant, writes from Benin City

Expert View: As Supreme Court Poised to Rule on Constitutionality of Key Acts in Kogi AG and 16 others v. AGF Case


What are the Legal Issues and the Confidence of Nigerians that the Supreme Court of Nigeria will Do Justice in the Suit Filed by Kogi State AG and 16 Others v. AGF on the Constitutionality or Validity of Certain Acts Challenged in that Suit?

The above-mentioned suit came before the Supreme Court of Nigeria on the 8th of October, 2024, and was adjourned to the 22nd of October, 2024, for hearing.

Pundits are confident that, in view of the clear position of the law on the issues brought before the Supreme Court in the said suit by the AGs of the states v. the AGF, and coupled with the declared commitment of the current head of the judiciary, Hon. Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, to ensure the independence and integrity of the judiciary, the right decision will be made under the circumstances of the suit.

This would lend credence to the doctrine of true federalism, respect for the rule of law, and constitutional order. The time-honored principle in *Macfoy v. UAC* is still relevant, to the extent that if the law provides for a mandatory way to perform an action, and one fails in that regard, the failure renders the action a nullity, as one cannot build something on nothing.

In other words, the Supreme Court found in *Nwobike’s Case* that the Acts challenged in the suit, particularly the EFCC Act, were rooted in a UN Convention. By virtue of Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution, the states of the federation, as critical stakeholders in Nigeria, were supposed to be consulted or involved in enacting those Acts, but that did not happen.

This is the reason why those Acts are considered unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court is being called upon to so hold and accordingly nullify them.

It is also the position that the items that gave rise to those Acts were not on the exclusive legislative list, meaning that the National Assembly could not make laws on them without consulting the states of the federation. Indeed, the defendant in the suit did not dispute these facts but simply posited that the concurrence of the states was not needed or required in enacting those Acts. This is a very wrong and misconceived position.

The Supreme Court of Nigeria is therefore called upon to rise to the occasion, assert its uprightness, integrity, and supremacy, by doing what is right in this matter—just as it did in the Naira redesign suit, which involved similar principles to the instant case.

U. F. Umoru, Esq.
Bashar Road,
Kongo Campus, Zaria

Governor Ahmed Usman Ododo has approves seventy two thousand five hundred Naira Minimum Wage for Kogi Civil Servants with Immediate effect.

The Governor also suspended tax burden on the approved sum for one year.

Governor Ododo made this known during the unavailing of the 70 thousand Naira minimum wage after signing the agreement.

Governor Ododo said the new Seventy Two Thousand Five hundred Naira minimum wage should take immediate effects to enable the wage cope with the current situation in the country.

The Chairman Minimum wage Committee, Mr Elijah Evenemi said the agreement on the minimum wage is not a victory for any political party but for the good of the masses.

He appreciated the governor for giving the committee free hand to operate and achieve a common goal.