The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved judgment in the suit but State Governments challenging the legality or otherwise of the statutes establishing the anti-graft commission.
This comes as three states of the federation pulled out of the legal action before the apex court in the land.
The states are Anambra, Adamawa and Ebonyi. They announced their decisions to withdraw from the matter shortly after it was called up for hearing.
The Attorney General of Anambra state, Prof. Sylvia Ifemeje, told the apex court that the state was no longer interested in pursuing the case.
She disclosed that the state’s withdrawal notice was dated October 20.
Also, Adamawa, through its own AG, Mr. J. I. Jingi, I notified the apex court that it had on October 14, also filed a notice of withdrawal.
As for Ebonyi state, which was initially listed as the 18th plaintiff, through its counsel, Mr. Ikenna Nwidagu, also applied to withdraw from the matter.
Their request to pull out of the case was not opposed by the Attorney-General of Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, being the only defendant in the suit.
Consequently, the apex court panel, led by Justice Uwani Abba-Aji, struck out Anambra, Adamawa and Ebonyi states as the 9th, 16th and 18th plaintiffs in the suit.
The legal action against the EFCC was originally instituted by Kogi state.
Meanwhile, the development came on a day that Osun state, through its Attorney-General, Mr Oluwole Bada, applied to be allowed to consolidate its own grievance against the operations of the EFCC, with that of Kogi state.
The suit, marked: SC/CV/178/2023, was originally brought before the court by Kogi state, however, 15 other states applied and were joined as co-plaintiffs, while others filed applications for their own suit to be consolidated with the extant matter.
The states are basically challenging the legality of the operations of the EFCC which they insisted was not validly established by the then administration of President Olusegun Obasanjo.
The EFCC was established by an Act of the National Assembly on December 12, 2002, by Obasanjo’s administration.
Following the appointment and confirmation of its pioneer Executive Chairman, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu and other administrative officers, by the Senate, the Commission commenced its operational activities on April 13, 2003, though its Establishment Act was later amended in 2004.
However, in the suit before the apex court, the states, through their respective Attorneys General, argued that section 12 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, was not complied with before the EFCC began its operations.
According to the plaintiffs, it was a mandatory provision of the Constitution that the majority of the Houses of Assembly of States must vote and agree to the passage of the EFCC Act, insisting that it was not something that only the National Assembly was legally allowed to do.
They told the Supreme Court that none of the states was carried along before the EFCC was established by then President Obasanjo’s administration.
They argued that the Supreme Court had in a decided case-law, of Dr. Joseph Nwobike Vs Federal Republic of Nigeria, held that it was a United Nation 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 plaintiffs maintained that since due process was not followed before the EFCC Establishment Act was enacted, it cannot be applicable in states that never approved of it, by provisions of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
They argued that any agency that was formed as a result of the Act, ought to be regarded as an illegal institution.
The states relied on the fact that since the 1999 Constitution, as amended, is the supreme law of the land, any Act of the National Assembly that is inconsistent with the Constitution, ought to be declared a nullity.
Specifically, Kogi state, which originated the case, raised six questions for the apex court to determine, even as it sought nine principal reliefs.
It, among other things, prayed the Supreme Court for: “A declaration that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU) or any agency of the Federal Government of Nigeria cannot investigate, requisition documents, invite and or arrest anyone with respect to offences arising from or touching on the administration and management of funds belonging to Kogi state of Nigeria or any Local Government Area of Kogi State.”
As well as: “A declaration that the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU) or any agency of the Federal Government, lacks the power to issue any directive, guideline, advisory or any instrument howsoever called for the administration and management of funds belonging to Kogi State of Nigeria or any Local Government Area of Kogi state.”
While adopting its processes on Tuesday, the state, through its counsel, Mr. Abdulwahab Mohammed, SAN, urged the court to grant all the reliefs and “award heavy cost in favour of the plaintiffs on record.”
In his response, the AGF, Prince Fagbemi, SAN, said he had on October 18, filed both a preliminary objection and counter-affidavit to query the competence of the action.
While urging the court to strike out or dismiss the case, the AGF, argued that contrary to the contention of the plaintiffs, the EFCC was validly established in line with the provision of section 15(5) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
He refuted the claim by Kogi state that the EFCC Establishment Act was an offshoot of an international convention that was not properly domesticated in Nigeria.
“I urge my lords to dismiss this suit in its entirety, otherwise, tomorrow, what the people will go out to say is that the Supreme Court has said we should no longer fight corruption.
“Moreover, ruling in favour of the plaintiffs will have a far-reaching implication, especially on all the previous convictions,” the AGF added.
After it had listened to both sides, Justice Abba-Aji led the panel to reserve its judgement till a date it said would be communicated to the parties.
