Editorial: In support of States’ suit against EFCC, ICPC, others

Spread the love

By Daily Review Online

We are alarmed at the reprehensible turn of events over the suit by 16 state governments against the Attorney-General of the Federation(AGF) challenging the constitutionality of the laws establishing the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Independent Corrupt Practices Commission(ICPC), Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit(NFIU) and Proceeds of Crime Act.
The Supreme Court had last Tuesday reserved judgment in the suit, filed by 16 states challenging the constitutionality of the laws establishing the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) while Anambra, Ebonyi, and Adamawa states announced their withdrawal as co-plaintiffs.
In recent years, Nigeria has grappled with the pervasive issue of corruption, prompting the establishment of various agencies aimed at combating financial crimes. Among these, (
EFCC) and ICPC were created with the intention of promoting accountability and transparency. However, a significant legal challenge now confronts these institutions, as several states have united in a lawsuit questioning their constitutionality. This editorial supports the states’ suit for the disbandment of the EFCC and ICPC, emphasizing the importance of constitutional integrity, state sovereignty, and the need for a reformed approach to governance.

At the heart of the suit is a fundamental legal principle: the Federal Government cannot impose laws without the explicit approval of the states. The plaintiffs argue that the EFCC and ICPC, as products of laws that allegedly violate Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution, lack the necessary constitutional foundation. Section 12 stipulates that any treaty, including those related to international conventions, must be enacted into law by the National Assembly and ratified by a majority of state Houses of Assembly. The plaintiffs contend that the EFCC and ICPC were established under the auspices of the United Nations Convention against Corruption without proper ratification, rendering their existence illegitimate.

This legal challenge is not merely a technicality; it is a crucial affirmation of Nigeria’s federal structure. The constitution recognizes the states as key stakeholders in the legislative process, particularly regarding laws that affect their governance. Allowing the federal government to unilaterally create agencies like the EFCC and ICPC undermines the principles of federalism and state autonomy. The states involved in the lawsuit are not merely seeking to disband these agencies; they are advocating for a system that respects the roles and rights of all levels of government.
Additionally, the current legal framework surrounding the EFCC and ICPC is deeply intertwined with international conventions, which can complicate national sovereignty. While Nigeria has a responsibility to uphold international treaties, it must do so in a manner consistent with its constitutional obligations. The failure to ratify these treaties appropriately raises questions about the legitimacy of the laws derived from them. Therefore, the states’ suit serves as a vital reminder that Nigeria’s sovereignty must be preserved and respected in the face of international pressures.

Moreover, the effectiveness of the EFCC and ICPC in addressing corruption has been called into question. Numerous allegations of mismanagement, selective enforcement, and abuse of power have plagued these institutions. The EFCC, in particular, has faced criticism for operating beyond its mandate, often pursuing politically motivated cases that raise concerns about its impartiality. This lack of accountability is compounded by the absence of a robust framework to ensure transparency in its operations. A disbandment of these agencies could pave the way for a more accountable and effective mechanism for combating corruption—one that operates within the bounds of the law and commands public trust.
These agencies have been known to target political adversaries while corruption cases involving members of the ruling party are willfully unaddressed or were handled less vigorously.
Also, the influence of Aso Rock over the operations and decisions of these agencies, undoubtedly has compromised their effectiveness.
For instance, In October 2015, Godswill Akpabio was charged by the EFCC over allegations of looting the treasuries of Akwa Ibom State as Governor to the tune of N108billion. Nine years after that case is stultified, killed by the same EFCC that began the prosecution.
Similarly in 2021 the Benue State government raised a petition to anti-graft agencies against Minister of Special Duties then, George Akume. Akume was accused by the state he once presided as Governor of theft of N4.56bilion of state funds.
Today, Akpabio is presiding over the National Assembly while Akume is calling the administrative shots at Aso Rock.
Bello Matawalle and former Zamfara State governor was accused by the EFCC to have diverted N70bn from the state treasury. Today he is the incumbent Minister of State for Defence. Where would EFCC gather the moral authority to further his prosecution?
The unceremonious sack of Nuhu Ribadu in 2007 after he revealed that over 380 billion dollars had been stolen or wasted by Nigerian government officials was a pointer that the federal government was not just selective but not sincere in the fight against corruption.
Besides, Ibrahim Magu, Abdulrasheed Bawa former chairmen of the agency were not spared the same fate. They were accused of corruption but left off the hook.
In 2019 several officials of the agency were implicated in a scandal involving the diversion of funds meant for anti-corruption initiatives, manipulating evidence and extorting money from suspects during investigations. All of those accused are boldly walking the streets today as free men, some holding very sensitive positions in this present government.
The lawsuit is also a response to a broader public sentiment that demands accountability in the fight against corruption. Many Nigerians are disillusioned with the perceived ineffectiveness of the EFCC and ICPC, feeling that these agencies often prioritize high-profile cases that serve political interests over genuine anti-corruption efforts. By challenging the constitutionality of these agencies, the states are not only standing up for legal principles but are also voicing the frustrations of a populace eager for meaningful change.

In light of these issues, the editorial encourages a reevaluation of Nigeria’s approach to fighting corruption. Disbanding the EFCC and ICPC could provide an opportunity to establish new institutions that prioritize constitutional adherence, accountability, and public engagement. A reformed anti-corruption body could be designed to incorporate input from both federal and state levels, ensuring that the fight against corruption is a collaborative effort rather than a top-down imposition.

Furthermore, this legal challenge presents an opportunity for a national dialogue on corruption and governance. It is crucial for citizens to engage in discussions about how best to combat corruption while respecting constitutional rights and state sovereignty. The fight against corruption should not come at the expense of democratic principles; rather, it should enhance them.

Unfortunately, the withdrawal of Anambra, Adamawa, and Ebonyi from the suit as well as the sacking of Benue State Attorney and Commissioner for Justice for joining the suit, raise questions about possible federal arm-twisting.
We posit that these states’ sudden decisions could be indicative of pressure from the federal government to scuttle the legal battle and reduce opposition to the EFCC. We also see the Attorney General of the Federation’s non-opposition as a strategic move to consolidate support for the EFCC, potentially silencing dissent from the states. We pray this does not happen.
Without equivocation, we restate that the suit by the states challenging the constitutionality of the EFCC and ICPC is a necessary and timely intervention in Nigeria’s governance landscape. It underscores the importance of adhering to constitutional provisions, respects the roles of states within the federation, and calls for a critical reassessment of how Nigeria approaches corruption.
As we await the ruling of the Supreme Court, it is essential for all Nigerians to support this effort, recognizing that the fight against corruption must be rooted in legality, accountability, and the collective will of the people. Only then can Nigeria hope to build a future free from the shackles of corruption, grounded in a governance framework that is both just and effective.

Leave a Reply