Anambra State has withdrawn from a lawsuit that challenges the legality of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), signaling a new chapter in a legal dispute involving 16 states.
The announcement was made on Tuesday by the Attorney General of Anambra State, Prof. Sylvia Ifemeje, at the Supreme Court, marking a significant shift in a case originally initiated by Kogi State.
Anambra’s decision to pull out comes amidst an intensifying legal confrontation between several states and the EFCC. These states have argued that the agency was illegally constituted under the administration of former President Olusegun Obasanjo. The EFCC was formally established in 2002, but the plaintiffs claim that its formation did not comply with the necessary constitutional processes.
Prof. Ifemeje submitted the state’s notice of withdrawal, dated October 20, to a seven-man panel of Supreme Court justices, led by Justice Uwani Abba-Aji. She informed the court that Anambra no longer wished to pursue the matter.
However, Osun State made a different move during the same hearing. Represented by its Attorney General, Oluwole Bada, Osun requested to merge its grievances with Kogi State’s case against the EFCC. The state is seeking similar reliefs to those Kogi originally demanded.
Osun’s entry into the legal battle comes as a surprise, as more states appear to be joining the opposition against the anti-graft agency, raising questions about the future of the EFCC and its operations.
Osun’s Attorney General said, “Our state shares the same concerns as Kogi regarding the legality of EFCC’s operations, and we believe this court should look into these pressing issues.”
While Sokoto State, another plaintiff in the case, failed to send any legal representatives on Tuesday, several other states stood firm in their opposition to the EFCC. These states include Kebbi, Katsina, Jigawa, Oyo, Benue, Plateau, Cross River, Ondo, Niger, Edo, Bauchi, Adamawa, Taraba, Ebonyi, Imo, and Nasarawa.
The Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, represented the Federal Government as the sole defendant in the matter. In response to Anambra’s withdrawal, the AGF raised no objections.
The origin of the legal battle can be traced to the creation of the EFCC during Obasanjo’s tenure. Although the EFCC was established by an Act of the National Assembly in 2002 and began operations in 2003 under the leadership of Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, the plaintiffs argue that this process was constitutionally flawed.
The states claim that the EFCC Act was passed without proper input from the Houses of Assembly of the states, as required by Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution.
According to the lawsuit, “The establishment of the EFCC was in violation of the Constitution, and it should be declared an illegal entity since the states were not part of the decision-making process.”
The plaintiffs’ case is grounded in a previous Supreme Court ruling in Dr. Joseph Nwobike vs Federal Republic of Nigeria, which found that the EFCC’s Establishment Act was derived from a United Nations Convention on corruption, yet was not in compliance with Nigerian constitutional law.
In a dramatic turn of events, Kogi State, the lead plaintiff in the case, presented six key legal questions for the Supreme Court to address. These questions center on whether the EFCC and its sister agency, the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU), have the authority to investigate, arrest, or manage funds belonging to Kogi State or any of its local governments.
Kogi has sought nine major reliefs, including declarations that the EFCC has no legal right to investigate state funds or issue directives regarding their management.
“This case goes beyond just Kogi State. It affects all Nigerian states and the balance of power between the federal government and the states,” said a legal analyst familiar with the case.
The states are arguing that the EFCC, in its current form, cannot operate within their jurisdictions, as it was not properly constituted according to the constitutional guidelines that require state involvement.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on this case could have far-reaching consequences for the future of anti-corruption efforts in Nigeria. If the court sides with the plaintiffs, it could dismantle the EFCC’s operations at the state level, forcing a re-evaluation of how corruption is fought in Nigeria.
Meanwhile, as the case continues, the states involved in the lawsuit are pressing forward with their demands that the EFCC’s powers be curtailed.
