Apply the law

•Appeal Court should interpret the law on limits of EFCC to probe state accounts

The decision by Justice Nnamdi Dimgba of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has the full right to conduct investigations into accounts of the Benue State government, conflicting in essence and content with two earlier decisions by Justice Ibrahim Buba, then of Port Harcourt Division of the court in March 2007, and Justice Taiwo Taiwo of the Ekiti Division in January 2018, has thrown up concern on the interpretation of the statutes on corruption.

While Justice Dimgba, before whom the two previous decisions were tabled by the plaintiff, the Benue State government, held that he saw nothing conflicting with the principles of federalism that were not envisaged by the law, Justice Taiwo had agreed in essence with Justice Buba that such powers can only be exercised by the state houses of assembly.

A perusal of the material facts placed before the courts indicate why the EFCC is bothered about any attempt to limit it to investigating alleged federal financial indiscipline, recklessness and malfeasance. In the recent case against the Rivers State government before the Ado-Ekiti division, the EFCC disclosed that it was investigating withdrawals of N11 billion from the state’s account with the Central Bank of Nigeria between October 2015 and February 2016 by the director of finance and account of the government house, Mr. Kingsley Fubara. Another N1.5 billion was said to have been transferred into a personal account within the same period. These are huge sums that, if properly deployed, could alleviate the suffering of the people.

In the Benue State case, the EFCC was probing the deployment of N21.3billion allegedly withdrawn from the state account. N19 billion was said to have been earmarked for funding security agencies sent to the state to arrest the farmers-herdsmen clashes. It was alleged that only N3 billion was expended for the purpose. Similarly, N1.3 billion reportedly withdrawn from the state joint local government account for payment of workers’ salaries was diverted and unaccounted for. These were allegations which the EFCC was investigating and for which a freezing order had been placed on the account. It was the state government that approached Justice Dimgba’s court for a restraining order on the EFCC.

We are in support of seeking the intervention of the Court of Appeal for a proper interpretation of the law. This would clear the air on the boundaries of the powers of the EFCC. Under what condition could the commission inquire into the appropriation and expenditure powers of state governments? Are there limits to the commission’s powers, given the expansive interpretation by Justice Dimgba of sections 6, 7 and 38 of the EFCC Act and Section 4 of the Constitution that vest the power for legislation for the federation and any part thereof on the National Assembly?

In the interim, since the previous judgments are not binding on the Federal Capital Territory division, both parties should observe the ruling unless or until it is set aside by the Court of Appeal.

We are worried that corruption has become a cancer that has eaten very deep into various organs and tiers of public life. This has to be contained urgently in the national interest. The mind-boggling sums that state governments are alleged to be spending without due appropriation and accountability have to be checked. In this wise, subject to whatever the appeal court, and indeed probably the Supreme Court, may arrive at, investigations into allegations should not be impeded in any form. The Supreme Court had ruled in many cases that even immunity enjoyed by the president, vice president, governors and deputy governors apply only to arrest, detention and prosecution. The Rule of Law is important, just as the principles of federalism and separation of powers, but they should not be applied to obstruct the wheel of justice in any way.

One reason the EFCC is being dragged into cases involving corruption in the states is that the houses of assembly have failed to play their roles. They hardly exercise their powers to conduct oversight over state agencies or call the governors to order.