- okays NFIU’s guidelines limiting cash withdrawal from public accounts
The Supreme Court has dismissed the suit filed by Kogi and 18 other states challenging the legality of the laws establishing the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and two other anti-corruption agencies.
The other agencies are the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) and the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU).
In a unanimous judgment on Friday, a seven-member panel of the apex court held among others, that the laws were validly enacted by the National Assembly and that the agencies’ powers were exercisable nationwide.
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 court faulted the claim by the plaintiffs that the EFCC Act, being a product of the United Nations Convention on Corruption, ought to be ratified by a majority of the state House of Assembly.
In the suit, marked: SC/CV/SC/178/2023 originally filed by Kogi State, but to which 15 other states became associated, the plaintiffs had among others urged the court to restrain the anti-corruption agencies from investigating and prosecuting states and Local Governments’s 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 the 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.
In her lead judgment, Justice Abba-Aji held that the guidelines and advisory issued by the NFIU in 2023 restricting cash withdrawal to N5m for individuals and N10m for corporate bodies were lawful because they were made pursuant to the NFIU Act, validly enacted by the National Assembly.
Justice Abba-Aji held that the rationale for secondary legislation (which the NFIU’s guidelines represent) is to give effect to the primary legislation (the NFIU Act).
Read Also: Alleged N110.4b fraud: EFCC grants bail to Yahaya Bello’s co-defendants
She added: “Where guidelines are made pursuant to a valid law, its legality cannot be questioned.
“The NFIU Act, validly enacted by the National Assembly is binding on every entity within the federation (Nigeria), including the plaintiffs (the states)”
The judge held that the National Assembly has the power to legislate on matters relating to combating corruption and abuse of office, including those outside public offices.
“The power to legislate to combat corruption and abuse of office can be legally exercised by the National Assembly,” she said.
She held that like the laws establishing the EFCC and ICPC, the NFIU Act and guidelines, having been enacted by the National Assembly, are applicable throughout the federation.
Justice Abba-Aji noted that the NFIU Act and the guidelines are geared towards 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.
The judge held that: “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 offences relating to corruption, and economic crimes, among others.
As against the contention by the plaintiffs, Justice Abba-Aji held that the EFCC has the power to prosecute any person nationwide concerning economic and financial crimes.
She further held that even where a state House of Assembly enacts anti-corruption, such laws cannot stand where they are inconsistent with the ones enacted by the National Assembly.
Justice Abba-Aji, who not that “if we don’t kill corruption will kill us,” noted that rather than hailing the EFCC, and 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 said, 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 interests in the case, which related to the prosecution and investigation of its officials by the anti-corruption agencies, the other states that sheepishly joined Kogi, failed to disclose their interests.
On the legality of the EFCC Act, Justice Abba-Aji held that as against the argument by the plaintiffs, 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 the treaty, which requires ratification of a majority of state Houses of Assembly, the EFCC Act which is a convention and not a treaty did require ratification by the majority of state houses of assembly as provided in Section 12 of the Constitution.
The judge added that by sections 4(2) and 15(5) of the Constitution, the National Assembly can make law on corruption without the ratification of the state House 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.
Some other states that supported the suit are Katsina, Sokoto, Jigawa, Oyo, Benue, Bauchi, Kebbi, Adamawa, Plateau, Cross River, Ondo, Niger, Edo, Taraba and Imo.
The Nation
