The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, reserved judgment in the suit filed by 19 states challenging the constitutionality of the laws establishing the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
The apex court is to communicate a date for judgment to all parties.
The plaintiffs, in the suit marked: SC/CV/178/2023, had argued that the Supreme Court, in Dr Joseph Nwobike Vs Federal Republic of Nigeria, had held that it was a UN Convention against corruption that was reduced into the EFCC Establishment Act and that in enacting this law in 2004, the provision of Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, was not followed.
The argument was that, in bringing a convention into the Nigerian law, the provision of Section 12 must be complied with.
According to them, the provision of the constitution necessitated the majority of the states’ Houses of Assembly agreeing to bringing the convention in before passing the EFCC Act and others, which was allegedly never done.
The argument of the states in their present suit, which they had reportedly been corroborated by the Supreme Court in the previous case mentioned, is that the law, as enacted, could not be applied to states that never approved of it, in accordance with the provisions of the Nigerian constitution.
Hence, they argued that any institution so formed should be regarded as an illegal institution.
At the resumed hearing on Tuesday, two states; Imo and Bauchi joined the suit as co-plaintiffs while Osun sought a consolidation of the suit.
In another development, three states; Anambra, Ebonyi and Adamawa announced their decisions to withdraw their suits.
The Attorney-General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, who was present in court as the defendant, had craved the court’s indulgence to take the process they filed on Tuesday morning.
Justice Uwani Abba-Aji thereby granted leave to the defendant to use the reply on point of law filed on Tuesday.
Mohammed Abdulwahab, SAN, who appeared for the 1st plaintiff (Kogi Attorney-General), pointed out that the amended processes filed by the AGF were different from what had initially been filed, noting that he had to refile his processes to answer to the fresh issues and facts.
The old processes were therefore struck out.
“I seek your lordship indulgence to adopt the processes. We urge your lordship to grant all the reliefs sought.
“The crux of our suit is the decision of this court. The counsel that represented the appellant in that suit by the rules of this Court Order 4, will be called to address this court.
“He participated in the bill that birthed the EFCC and ICPC together,” he said.
The judge asked who the counsel was and Abdulwahab replied: “Chief Kanu Agabi, SAN.”
“Chief Kanu Agabi, SAN, told this court that it was the Convention of the UN that reduced this into law. Section 12, that provision, was never followed.
“This fact was not an issue with the case of AG Ondo Vs AG Federation. So there is a specific provision for bringing a convention in. You cannot just be talking about Items 7 of 8.
“We are also challenging the foundation of those laws that created NIFU, EFCC, etc. in order not to create a constitutional crisis.
“We urge you to allow our appeal and award heavy cost in favour of the plaintiffs on record,” the counsel said.
Responding, Fagbemi contended that the case of AG Ondo v. AG Federation and other decisions had already settled all the issues raised in the plaintiffs’ case and that the Supreme Court could not depart from those decisions.
He therefore prayed that the suit be dismissed.
When the suit in A-G Ekiti State Vs AGF was called, no lawyer appeared
Counsel for the defendant, T. A Gazali, SAN, told the court that the state was not represented at the last sitting and was not also in court on Tuesday.
“We apply that the matter be struck out for want of diligent prosecution my lord,” Gazali prayed and the application was granted.
In the suit filed by A-G Osun against the AGF, the state’s A-G, Oluwole Jimi-Bada, SAN, who was in court, informed the court of their application for consolidation of their suit with that of Kogi.
Also, Nasarawa A-G, S.M. Labaran, told the court of their intention to consolidate the suit.
In the same vein, the A-G of Ogun, represented by Omotayo Olatunbosun, said though they sought a consolidation of the case, he prayed that their case abide in suit number: SC/CV/178/2024 between A-G of Kogi Vs AGF.
Justice Abba-Aji, in the ruling, reserved judgment in the Kogi suit and ruled that all the three suits filed by Osun, Nasarawa and Ogun seeking for consolidation shall abide with arguments in the original suit filed by Kogi.
On Tuesday, the number of states challenging the constitutionality of the EFCC and others had climbed to 19, including Kogi, despite the withdrawal of three states.
The states are Kogi, Kebbi, Katsina, Sokoto, Jigawa, Enugu, Oyo, Benue, Plateau, Cross River, Ondo, Niger, Edo, Bauchi, Imo, Osun, Nasarawa, Ogun, Taraba.(NAN)
