- Okays NFIU guidelines limiting cash withdrawal from public accounts
- SANs hail apex court for dismissing ‘disastrous’ suit
THE Supreme Court yesterday declared that it would not allow itself to be used by politicians to shield corruption as it truncated a bid by 19 states of the federation to invalidate the establishment of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission (ICPC) and the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU).
The Supreme Court dismissed the suit filed by the states and declared that the laws establishing the anti- graft agencies were validly enacted by the National Assembly, and their powers are exercisable nationwide.
Two senior advocates of Nigeria (SANs) said yesterday that the apex court could not have decided otherwise on the matter.
The suit , SC/CV/SC/178/2023,was originally at the instance of Kogi, whose immediate past governor, Yahaya Bello, is facing corruption charges preferred against him by the EFCC.
Other states later became associated.
In its unanimous judgment yesterday, the seven-member panel of the apex court faulted claims by the plaintiffs that the EFCC Act, being a product of the United Nations convention on corruption, ought to have been ratified by the majority of the state Houses of Assembly.
In the lead judgment by Justice Uwani Abba-Aji, the Supreme Court resolved the six issues raised for determination in the suit against the plaintiffs and declared the case unmeritorious.
The plaintiffs had, among others, urged the court to restrain the anti-corruption agencies from investigating and prosecuting states and local governments’ officials on offences relating to the management of states and LG funds.
They also prayed the court to declare that the Federal Government or its agencies cannot investigate, requisition documents and prosecute persons for offences relating to the management and utilisation of funds owned by the states and their LGs.
They equally queried the legality of the laws establishing the anti-corruption agencies and urged that they be voided.
As agreed by parties on the day the case was heard, the court applied the judgment in the suit originally filed by Kogi to the three others filed by Nasarawa, Ogun and Osun states.
All the cases had the Attorney General of the Federation as the sole defendant.
Justice Abba-Aji held in the lead judgement that the guidelines and advisory issued by the NFIU in 2023 restricting cash withdrawal to N5m for individual and N10m for corporate body were lawful because they were made pursuant to the NFIU Act, validly enacted by the National Assembly.
Justice Abba-Aji also held that the rationale for a secondary legislation (which the NFIU’s guidelines represents) was to give effect to the primary legislation (the NFIU Act).
“Where guidelines are made pursuant to a valid law, its legality cannot be questioned,” she said.
“The NFIU Act, validly enacted by the National Assembly is binding on every entity within the federation (Nigeria), including the plaintiffs (the states)”
The National Assembly, she added, has the power to legislate on matters relating to combating corruption and abuse of office, including those outside public offices.
“The power to legislate in order to combat corruption and abuse of office can be legally exercised by the National Assembly,” she said.
She said the laws establishing the EFCC and ICPC, the NFIU Act and guidelines, having been enacted by the National Assembly, were applicable throughout the federation.
Justice Abba-Aji noted that the NFIU Act and the guidelines were geared toward combating corruption, economic crime, terror financing and other predicate offences.
“The NFIU guideline did not affect the powers of the plaintiffs in governing their states and is therefore lawful,” the judge said.
She added that the National Assembly has the power to enact laws bordering on corruption, money laundering and related offences irrespective of the owner of the money involved either state or LG.
She said: “Where the NA has enacted laws on corruption, economic crimes, money laundering, terror financing, no state has the powers to make law inconsistent with the laws by the National Assembly.”
She faulted the plaintiffs’ argument that it is the state Houses of Assembly that can dictate the management, application and mode of withdrawal of funds belonging to the states and LG.
The judge also held that the AGF has the power to initiate criminal proceedings against any person in Nigeria in relation to corruption, economic crimes, among others.
She did not agree with the plaintiffs that the EFCC has no power to prosecute any person nationwide in relation to economic and financial crimes.
According to her, even where a state House of Assembly enacts anti-corruption laws, such cannot stand where they are inconsistent with the one enacted by the National Assembly.
Justice Abba-Aji noted that rather than hail the EFCC, ICPC for fighting corruption, as being done by others, the plaintiffs “decided to come before this court because of the selfish aggrandisement of corrupt politicians.”
“This court will not allow itself to be used to shield the corrupt,” she declared, adding that the Attorneys General of the plaintiffs’ states were only being used as puppets to shield the perpetrators of corruption.
Justice Abba-Aji observed that while Kogi disclosed its interest in the case, which related to the prosecution and investigation of its officials by the anti-corruption agencies, the other states that joined Kogi, failed to disclose their interests.
On the legality of the EFCC Act, Justice Abba-Aji held that Section 12 of the Constitution only applies in the case of a treaty.
She held that since the provision of Section 12 of the Constitution relates to treaty, which requires ratification of majority of state Houses of Assembly, the EFCC Act which is a convention and not a treaty did not require ratification by the majority of state Houses of Assembly.
She said that by virtue of Sections 4(2) and 15(5) of the Constitution, the National Assembly can make laws on corruption without the ratification of the state Houses of Assembly.
She held that the EFCC Act is a competent Act that does not require the contribution of any state House of Assembly even if it relates to issues contained in a convention.
Earlier in the judgment, the judge dismissed the preliminary injection raised against the suit by the AGF.
Other states that supported the suit are: Katsina, Sokoto, Jigawa, Oyo, Benue, Bauchi, Kebbi, Adamawa, Plateau, Cross River, Ondo, Niger, Edo, Taraba and Imo.
SANs hail Supreme Court for dismissing ‘ disastrous suit
Reacting to the judgement yesterday,two Senior Advocates of Nigeria, Dr Joseph Nwobike and Dr Wahab Shittu, said it would have been “shocking” and “disastrous” had the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the states in their suit challenging the legality of the anti-graft agencies.
“It would have been shocking for the Supreme Court to agree with the states,” Nwobike said.
According to him, the suit was rightly found to lack merit.
Shittu said he agreed with the conclusions reached by the apex court.
He added: “One justification for legal reasoning underlying the decision is the fact that EFCC is a creation of statute in the realm of the legislative competence of the National Assembly.
“The laws establishing the EFCC and other anti- graft agencies were validly enacted by the National Assembly within its Legislative competence.
“Significantly, the Supreme Court held that states cannot enact competing legislations in areas already legislated by the Federal Government.
“This may have raised the question of legality of individual state’s anti- corruption legislations.
“The distinction drawn between a treaty and a convention by the apex court will provoke further debate in the ensuing months.
“There are those who will argue that the distinction between a treaty and a convention is one of nomenclature and therefore a distinction without a difference. Interesting narrative.
“As an anti-corruption prosecution practitioner, I am personally delighted at the outcome of the case. The reverse would have been disastrous.”
