THE Society for Rule of Law in Nigeria (SRLN) has raised concern over the approach of the Federal Government to the Supreme Court Suit filed by some States, challenging the establishment of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offenses Commission (ICPC) and Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU).

The group said in a statement on Monday, by its Coordinator, Dr Chima Ubeku, that it was strange that the Federal Government was employing sentiments and at the same time trying to bully the States, adding that insinuating in its objection to the suit that the States who were only seeking to deepen true federalism in Nigeria were doing so out of hatred for the three anti-corruption agencies was unacceptable.

Plaintiffs in the Suit Number SC/178/2023 are Kogi, Kebbi, Katsina, Sokoto, Jigawa, Enugu, Oyo, Benue, Anambra, Plateau, Cross-River, Ondo, Niger, Edo, Bauchi, Adamawa, Taraba, Ebonyi and Imo states government. But states like Nasarawa and Ogun, which are parties to the suit, are only contesting the NFIU cash withdrawal limit Guidelines.

The Plaintiffs are contending that the Federal Government cannot under any guise control funds appropriated by Houses of Assembly of the Plaintiffs and are asking the Supreme Court to nullify the EFCC, ICPC, NFIU and Proceeds of Crime Act, all rooted in United Nations Convention and protocol, having not been ratified by the Houses of Assembly of the Plaintiffs in line with Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution.

However, in its preliminary objection dated October 17, 2024 and filed by the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, through a team of lawyers led by the Director of Civil Appeals, Ministry of Justice, T.A. Gazali, SAN, the Federal Government had urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the suit filed by 19 state governments challenging the constitutionality of the laws establishing anti-corruption agencies in the country, arguing that the apex court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

The AGF went further to state that “the plaintiffs were aggrieved by the action of the Federal Government, through its agencies like EFCC, Independent Corrupt Practice, and other related offences Commission, NFIU.”

In its reaction, the group, which commended the States involved in the suit, described it as a way of ensuring true federalism in the country.

The group said rather than acting like the suit was an attack against it, the federal government should join hands with the States to ensure that the Supreme Court uphold the constitution and set the country on the path of real federalism.

It said; Nigeria is a Federation established by the Constitution, which gave distinctive functions to the federating units and the federation is not one in which the federal government, which is just one of the federating units can act like the godfather and the other federating units as its godchildren.

Most importantly, institutions fighting corruption in Nigeria should be built on the foundation of the law, not sentiments and emotions. More so that the greatest corruption is disobedience to the constitution of the country by establishing anti-corruption agencies without total compliance with the constitution.

Therefore, instead of trying to present the States that are plaintiffs in the suit as haters of the anti-corruption agencies, the federal government should be concerned with its primary duty of protecting the constitution of the country.

The 1999 Constitution is very clear on the areas the National Assembly has exclusive preserve to make laws, the areas the States have and the areas both the National and State assemblies share legislative powers.

“It is a fact that the Acts in dispute, being rooted in United Nations Convention and protocol do not fall on any of those categories, as a result of which compliance with Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution was a mandatory requirement.

In the initial defense to the suit, the AGF did not deny that the Acts were rooted in the United Nations Convention, he only said that the concurrence of States of the Federation as stakeholders was not necessary for the validity of the Acts. Implication of this is that compliance with Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution was not necessary for the validity of the Acts.

It is our opinion that the Supreme Court should be allowed to adjudicate on this suit, without the plaintiffs being branded haters of the Federal Government’s Anti-corruption agencies. Also, rather than trying to sustain the obvious illegality of the establishment of the agencies, the federal government should rather correct the errors and get them properly established in accordance with the constitution.