The Anambra State Government on Tuesday announced its decision to withdraw from the lawsuit aimed at declaring the operations of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) illegal.
In the withdrawal notice dated 20 October, the state, through its Attorney General, Prof. Sylvia Ifemeje, told the Supreme Court that it would no longer partake in the legal action originally instituted by Kogi State.
Kogi State had raised six questions for the apex court to determine the on the operations of the anti-graft agency even as it sought nine principal reliefs in the suit.
Among other things, the state 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, require documents, invite and or arrest anyone with respect to offenses 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.
“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.”
The Osun State Government through its Attorney-General, Mr. Oluwole Bada coincidentally sought permission to merge its complaint against the EFCC’s operations with that of Kogi State on the day Anambra State made its decision to withdraw.
Bada had told a seven-man panel of the apex court led by Justice Uwani Abba-Aji that it is seeking the same reliefs that Kogi State listed against the EFCC.
However, Sokoto State, which was earlier joined as a co-plaintiff in the matter, did not send any legal representative at the resumed proceeding on Tuesday.
Other states whose appearances were announced include Kogi, Kebbi, Katsina, Jigawa, Oyo, Benue, Plateau, Cross River, Ondo, Niger, Edo, Bauchi, Adamawa, Taraba, Ebonyi, Imo and Nasarawa.
The states are contending that the anti-graft agency was not validly established by the then administration of President Olusegun Obasanjo.
The Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, was the sole defendant in the matter.
Fagbemi did not oppose Anambra State’s request to pull out of the case.
LEADERSHIP understands that 16 states of the federation had approached the Supreme Court to challenge the operations of the EFCC.
The EFCC was established by an Act of the National Assembly on December 12, 2002, by the administration of former President Obasanjo.
Following the appointment and confirmation of its pioneer Executive Chairman, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, and other administrative officers, the Commission commenced its operations on 13 April, 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 added 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 in Dr. Joseph Nwobike Vs Federal Republic of Nigeria, 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 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 16 states are relying 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.
