₦airaland Forum

Kobojunkie:
So you go remove the need for Police Force from the Constitution?

Kobojunkie:
How? Show evidence of this claim.

If an agency was created as an arm of the Nigerian Police Force and signed into Law in 2002 by Nigerian Law makers, what makes said agency an illegal organization?

Kobojunkie:
How? Show evidence of this claim.

If an agency was created as an arm of the Nigerian Police Force and signed into Law in 2002 by Nigerian Law makers, what makes said agency an illegal organization?

Cmoke:
So you say below that EFCC is unconstitutional "...centralization of anti-corruption enforcement violates state sovereignty." The foregoing argument is laughable because unlike the USA where most states were truly sovereign prior to the formation of USA, .Nigeria states were NEVER sovereign as they were creations of their master - the federal government! Secondly, how do you reconcile your arguments with the power of the Nigeria Police to operate nationwide?


The NPF a creation of the 1999 constitution, while EFFC is domesticated act of the national assembly which lacks jurisdiction over the 36 federating units of the country, which means unliked police with 36 commanding units,EFFC act will go through 36 states houses of Assembly for passage of the bill so it's jurisdiction will cover a whole that's the broader discussions of these very topic


You also lost us when you argued below that since "... several state governments and public officials have raised concerns about the EFCC’s authority, particularly regarding its involvement in state financial matters. The ongoing debate about the legality of the EFCC underscores the need for clarity..." Since when do several armed robbers raising concern about anti robbery laws lead to the conclusion that the laws are unconstitutional?

Cmoke


By Angela Ochioma

Femi Falana’s defense of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in response to Dr. Olisa Agbakoba’s claim about its legality raises several contradictions and shortcomings. While Falana attempts to paint the EFCC as constitutionally valid, his position undermines key principles of federalism and fails to address the agency's perceived overreach. The nature of Falana’s argument also reveals selective use of judicial rulings that gloss over essential nuances, weakening his stance on the EFCC’s legality.

One of the key issues with Falana’s argument is his dismissal of federalism concerns. Federalism is a core component of the Nigerian Constitution, which recognizes the autonomy of individual states in governance. Dr. Agbakoba’s critique of the EFCC hinges on this principle, arguing that the centralization of anti-corruption enforcement violates state sovereignty. Falana, however, overlooks this critical point. He defends the EFCC by asserting that the agency is supported by constitutional provisions, such as Section 15(5) of the 1999 Constitution, which mandates the state to abolish corrupt practices. But this broad interpretation of the law runs the risk of empowering the EFCC to interfere with state governments, eroding the delicate balance of power between the federal and state levels.

Falana's argument also suffers from internal inconsistency. On the one hand, he advocates for the authority of the EFCC to operate nationwide and prosecute corruption at all levels of government. On the other, he professes support for federalism, which emphasizes decentralization and the autonomy of states. This contradictory stance casts doubt on his commitment to the principle of federalism and raises concerns about his selective application of constitutional ideals. The EFCC, while vital in combatting corruption, operates in a manner that raises legitimate questions about federal overreach. Falana's failure to fully acknowledge these concerns undermines his broader argument.

Another issue with Falana’s defense is his selective citation of Supreme Court rulings to bolster the EFCC’s legality. He references past cases like **Attorney-General of Ondo State v Attorney-General of the Federation**, where the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of anti-corruption bodies like the ICPC. However, this precedent does not directly translate to the EFCC’s operations, as the ICPC’s mandate and scope differ from the EFCC’s broader and more intrusive powers. The absence of a nuanced discussion on how these rulings apply to the unique challenges posed by the EFCC weakens Falana’s argument. Instead of addressing the specific nature of the EFCC’s overreach into state affairs, Falana uses broad rulings to justify its existence, ignoring the complexities involved in balancing federal powers with state sovereignty.

Moreover, Falana's failure to substantiate his claim that no court has ever declared the EFCC unconstitutional highlights a gap in his defense. While it may be true that no legal ruling has annulled the EFCC Act, this does not automatically legitimize the agency's actions, especially in cases where states have pushed back against federal interference. Falana overlooks the fact that several state governments and public officials have raised concerns about the EFCC’s authority, particularly regarding its involvement in state financial matters. The ongoing debate about the legality of the EFCC underscores the need for clarity, and Falana’s simplistic dismissal of these concerns does not help to resolve the issue.

Finally, Falana’s call for the National Assembly to amend the Constitution and formally entrench the EFCC and ICPC only further complicates his position. While this move may provide legal backing for the agencies’ existence, it does not address the fundamental issues of federal overreach and accountability. Instead of offering a comprehensive solution, Falana’s proposal risks entrenching an imbalance of power between the federal government and the states, potentially exacerbating tensions between different levels of governance.

In conclusion, Femi Falana’s defense of the EFCC is riddled with contradictions and selective reasoning. His argument overlooks the legitimate concerns of federalism, fails to engage with the nuances of judicial rulings, and sidesteps the ongoing debate about the agency's role in state affairs. While the fight against corruption is undoubtedly important, it must not come at the expense of state sovereignty or constitutional balance. Falana’s inconsistent defense does little to resolve these tensions and raises more questions than it answers about the future of anti-corruption efforts in Nigeria.

gabbytabby:
Your emphasis is misguided because the issue is whether the establishment of the EFCC is constitutional or not. Not whether it aligns with federalism as you perceive it.

Kobojunkie:
EFCC already has the power to investigate even the FG. The major problem however is the very same corruption and abuse of power you find in every agency across all of Nigeria. And these are issues that cannot simply be legislated away. There are currently checks and balances in the system. The problem remains that they mostly go unimplemented and unused. Why? Corruption from the bottom up and from the top down.

ceevictor:
■ Which arm of Nigerian of police force is that which created the EFFC, twister looking for a way out, when ur lies have been busted

iTsupport:
■ i didnt say that. why would anyone want to remove the police?

Caseless:
These are people paid to write in favor of the governors. No matter what, we all know that federalism in the sense they preach it cannot work for us. Certain power should not be given to the states as they're fond of abusing it. They have their judiciary, houses of assembly, SIEC, what have they done with them? Now they want state police and power to have their own anti-graft agency control. Nigeria is a stupid country. We see what the governors are doing, but we want them to have absolute power.

Kobojunkie:
Then your argument does not follow.

ceevictor:
It is not, simply comprehend, the EFFC as a law enforcement agency is not non to the constitution of 1999

BABANGBALI:
you've been noticed. Now, go and play with your toys.

Wealthoptulent:
him sef flaw, flop on top BOB




It shows that you never prepared to have a FUTURE in the fess place; you, yourself can you comprehend what you have written? How does that fit in to the Opinion i raised for his involvement?
You go jus sabi words and letters for ENGLISH begin they Construct SENTENCES, please Use this energy to CONSTRUCT a CV (if u prepared any data to put in fess place) or jus go Learn for IRON CONSTRUCTION as artisan make u at least get something to offer FUTURE. ẹran ọmọ

gabbytabby:
As amended by subsequent amendments quo. The EFCC legislation is an amendment. That is how the law works.
Their try your luck if not for say they will pass it on they should be fined or their lawyers should be fined.

power44t:
foolish retard. joker of the century. keep wallowing in your demented state. shithole illiterate.

Caseless:
These are people paid to write in favor of the governors.

No matter what, we all know that federalism in the sense they preach it cannot work for us. Certain power should not be given to the states as they're fond of abusing it.

They have their judiciary, houses of assembly, SIEC, what have they done with them? Now they want state police and power to have their own anti-graft agency control.

Nigeria is a stupid country. We see what the governors are doing, but we want them to have absolute power.