Hundreds of Civil Society Organizations in Nigeria have protested what they described as the federal government’s deliberate attempt to disrespect the Nigerian Constitution and destroy the principles of federalism by using illegally constituted anti-graft agencies.
The CSOs, numbering about 200, said the attempt by the federal government to frustrate the hearing of the case instituted by 19 state governments, challenging the constitutionality of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and two others, was an indication that the Government was aware of the illegality of the anti-graft agencies and was trying to put pressure on the Supreme Court.
In a statement on Sunday, signed by Comrade Ifeanyi Odili, President of Campaign for Democracy, and Dr Dapo Oluwole of the Transparency and Accountability Network, TAN, the activists faulted the Federal Government’s alleged pressure on the Supreme Court to dismiss a valid case. They noted that they fully supported the fight against corruption but would not support the shenanigans of agencies working against the success of anti-graft efforts.
To them, the objections the Attorney-General of the Federation raised in its application had no bearing on the case at hand because they did not address the issue at stake—constitutionality.
They called on the judiciary to ignore harassment and intimidation by the executive at the centre, saying that a situation where successive administrations perceived the EFCC, in particular, as a tool for intimidation must stop in the interest of true federalism.
According to them, this is why corruption has continued to plague rather than reduce.
The statement reads: „We, as a group of Civil Society Organizations across Nigeria, have deemed it fit to also intervene in the current debate and litigations regarding the constitutionality or otherwise of the establishment of the EFCC, NFIU, ICPC, etc.
“When it comes to constitutional matters, all issues of concern must be properly and thoroughly interrogated and resolved by the judiciary without any attempts by the federal government to throw its weight around. In a federation like ours, the federal government is not superior to the federating units and cannot always breathe down their necks, especially on matters of concurrent jurisdiction.
“This is not to suggest that we oppose the establishment of anti-graft agencies. Nigeria needs effective anti-corruption agencies to arrest the dangerous trends of the epidemic of corruption in Nigeria’s public and private spaces. Corruption is holding this country down. It is killing us, and it must be terminated or, at least, subdued.
“However, you cannot fight a legal battle with an illegal body.
To do so is to stand the very principle of justice on its head. Suppose it is discovered that establishing our anti-graft agencies was outside of the constitutional processes stipulated by the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended. In that case, there is an urgent need for that aberration to be treated and healed before proceeding. Otherwise, all the actions of the anti-graft agencies would eventually amount to a nullity in the long run.
This will be to the advantage of the Federal Government, which can now operationalise the anti-graft agencies without let or hindrance. This is why it becomes so strange that the Federal Government is raising objections against something they should take full advantage of.
We see a deliberate design to force a fait accompli down the throat of the Judiciary in this matter by the Federal Government, and this is not only unacceptable but will be resisted by all legal means, including public actions by CSOs. What exactly is the Federal Government afraid of? Why would you come against answers being demanded on constitutional questions?
All the Federal Government needs to do is to organise its best legal minds to engage this matter in court to its logical conclusion without this overly agitated attempt to shoot it down or frustrate it.
The preliminary objection countersuit by the Federal Government is unnecessary, unwarranted, and fundamentally gratuitous. A student who has performed well should never be afraid of his or her paper to pass through reexamination. The judiciary has resolved many constitutional issues, which will continue to happen.
Why should anyone be opposed to this one? It is corruption to say that a court of competent jurisdiction should not determine the constitutional issues surrounding anti-corruption agencies. It is ridiculous to argue that the highest court in the land lacks jurisdiction over a constitutional issue. Which court can then entertain it?
States or organisations or even individuals, as bonafide citizens of this country, have a right to question the legality or constitutionality, as the case may be, of an activity or agency of government, and they have a right to be heard. To stifle that right through legal fraud, as the federal government is now attempting to do, is reprehensible.
We, as civil society organisations, are interested in finally resolving all constitutional issues regarding the establishment and operations of all government agencies, including the antigraft commissions.
This should be allowed to run its course without complications.“
