Supreme Court Reserves Judgment in Suit Challenging EFCC, NIFU Establishment Laws

The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, reserved judgment in a suit filed by 19 state governments against the federal government, challenging the legality of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and other institutions established through international conventions.

A date for the ruling will be communicated to the parties.

The states, in the suit marked SC/CV/178/2023, argued that the EFCC Establishment Act of 2004, which was based on a United Nations Convention against Corruption, violated Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

The section mandates that international conventions must receive approval from a majority of state Houses of Assembly before being domesticated into law.

The plaintiffs contended that since state assemblies did not approve the convention, the EFCC and other similar institutions were illegally constituted and their laws could not apply to states that did not consent to them.

At Tuesday’s hearing, the Supreme Court clarified that its judgment would cover Imo, Bauchi, Ogun, and Osun states, while Anambra, Ebonyi, and Adamawa states withdrew from the suit.

The Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, representing the defendant, sought permission to file new legal processes on Tuesday morning, which the court granted.

In response, Mohammed Abdulwahab, SAN, counsel for the first plaintiff, argued that the AGF’s new submissions differed from earlier filings, prompting him to refile his processes to address new issues.

The court struck out the old processes and allowed Abdulwahab to proceed with the adoption of the new filings.

He urged the court to grant the reliefs sought, emphasizing that the crux of the case rested on the constitutionality of the EFCC Act and related laws.

“The counsel involved in drafting the EFCC and ICPC bills, Chief Kanu Agabi, SAN, confirmed that these laws were drawn from the UN Convention, but the requirements of Section 12 were not fulfilled,” Abdulwahab argued.

“We challenge the foundation of these institutions to avoid constitutional crises and urge the court to rule in favor of the plaintiffs with significant costs awarded,” he added.

In response, Fagbemi, SAN, insisted that the issues raised by the plaintiffs had already been addressed in previous cases, such as AG Ondo v. AG Federation, and that the court should not depart from its established rulings. He prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

Additionally, Tijani Gazali, SAN, representing the AGF, requested the dismissal of a related case involving Ekiti State, citing the state’s absence during hearings. The court granted the request.

During the hearing, the Attorney-General of Osun State, Oluwole Jimi-Bada, SAN, sought to consolidate their case with that of Kogi State.

However, Justice Uwani Abba-Aji declined the request, stating that the states were already part of the matter and that judgment had been reserved.

With three states withdrawing from the suit, the number of plaintiffs stood at 19, including Kogi State.

The judgment, when delivered, will also apply to Ogun, Nasarawa, and Osun states, which had requested consolidation.

The states challenging the constitutionality of the EFCC and related laws are: Kogi, Kebbi, Katsina, Sokoto, Jigawa, Enugu, Oyo, Benue, Plateau, Cross River, Ondo, Niger, Edo, Bauchi, Imo, Osun, Nasarawa, Ogun, and Taraba.