The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, 22 October, 2024 reserved judgment in a suit filed by 19 state governments against the Federal Government, challenging the constitutionality of the laws establishing the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and two other agencies to a date to be communicated to the parties.
The plaintiffs, in the suit, marked: SC/CV/178/2023 had argued that the Supreme Court, in Dr Joseph Nwobike vs Federal Republic of Nigeria, had held that it was a United Nations Convention against corruption that was reduced into the EFCC Establishment Act and that in enacting this law in 2004, the provision of Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, was not followed.
The argument was that, in bringing a Convention into the Nigerian law, the provision of Section 12 must be complied with.
According to them, the provision of the Constitution necessitated the majority of the states’ Houses of Assembly agreeing to bring the convention in before passing the EFCC Act and others, which was allegedly never done.
The argument of the states in their present suit, which they had reportedly been corroborated by the Supreme Court in the previous case mentioned, is that the law, as enacted, could not be applied to states that never approved of it, in accordance with the provisions of the Nigerian constitution.
Hence, they argued that any institution so formed on the basis of reducing a UN Convention to law should be regarded as an illegal institution.
At the resumed hearing on Tuesday, 22 October, 2024 the Apex Court held that its judgment will apply to Imo, Bauchi, Ogun and Osun states while Anambra, Ebonyi and Adamawa States announced their decisions to withdraw their suits.
The Attorney-General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, who was present in court as the Defendant, had craved the court’s indulgence to take the process they filed on the morning of Tuesday, 22 October, 2024
Justice Uwani Abba-Aji thereby granted leave to the defendant to use the reply on point of law filed on Tuesday, 22 October, 2024.
Mohammed Abdulwahab, SAN, who appeared for the 1st Plaintiff, pointed out that the amended processes filed by the AGF were different from what had initially been filed, noting that he had to refile his processes to answer to the fresh issues and facts.
The old processes were therefore struck out.
“I seek your Lordship’s indulgence to adopt the processes. We urge your Lordship to grant all the reliefs sought.
“The crux of our suit is the decision of this court. The counsel that represented the appellant in that suit by the rules of this Court Order 4, will be called to address this court. He participated in the bill that birthed the EFCC and ICPC together,” he said.
The judge asked who the Counsel was and Wahab, SAN, replied: Chief Kanu Agabi, SAN.
“Chief Kanu Agabi, SAN, told this court that it was the Convention of the UN that reduced this into law. Section 12, that provision was never followed.
“This fact was not an issue with the case of AG Ondo Vs AG Federation. So there is a specific provision for bringing a convention in. You cannot just be talking about Items 7 of 8.
“We are also challenging the foundation of those laws that created NIFU, EFCC, etc. in order not to create a constitutional crisis.
“We urge you to allow our suit and award heavy costs in favour of the Plaintiff on record,” the Counsel said.
Responding, Fagbemi, SAN, contended that the case of AG Ondo v. AG Federation and other decisions had already settled all the issues raised in the Plaintiffs’ case and that the Supreme Court could not depart from those decisions. He therefore prayed that the suit be dismissed.
On AG Ekiti State vs AGF, Counsel for the Defendant, Tijani Gazali, SAN, pointed out that the state was not represented at the last sitting and was not also represented on Tuesday.
“We apply that the matter be struck out for want of diligent prosecution my lord,” Gazali prayed. This was granted.
The Attorney-General of Osun State, Oluwole Jimi-Bada, SAN, informed the court of their application for consolidation of their suit with that of Kogi State.
“We have an application before your lordship and with your kind permission, we are ready to proceed. It is an application for consolidation,” he said.
The judge, however, said the interesting thing about the case was that they were already part of the matter. “So why do you want to consolidate? Judgment has already been reserved.”
Justice Abba-Aji reserved judgment for a date to be communicated to the parties.
On Tuesday, the number of states challenging the constitutionality of the EFCC and others had climbed to 19, including Kogi State, despite the withdrawal of three states.
The court ruled that the judgment on Kogi State would be applied to Ogun, Nasarawa and Osun states that had earlier applied for consolidation.
The states in the suit Vs AGF are: Kogi, Kebbi, Katsina, Sokoto, Jigawa, Enugu, Oyo, Benue, Plateau, Cross River, Ondo, Niger, Edo, Bauchi, Imo, Osun, Nasarawa, Ogun, Taraba.
