The case brought before the Supreme Court by 19 state governments is a significant legal battle surrounding the EFCC legality. These states are contesting the constitutionality of the laws that established the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in Nigeria. The Supreme Court, being the highest court in the land, is set to rule on this matter, which could have profound implications for how anti-corruption efforts are structured and carried out in the country.
At the core of the dispute is whether the EFCC, a federal institution created to fight corruption, was lawfully established. The states argue that the EFCC legality is questionable because the laws that set it up were not properly passed in accordance with the Nigerian Constitution. Specifically, they point to Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, which stipulates that international conventions or treaties must be domesticated through legislation passed by the majority of the state houses of assembly before they become law. According to the plaintiffs, this process was not followed when the EFCC was established in 2004, meaning the law is void, and the commission itself is illegal.
The states are also drawing on a previous case, Dr. Joseph Nwobike vs. Federal Republic of Nigeria, where the Supreme Court held that the EFCC Establishment Act was based on a United Nations Convention against Corruption. The governors contend that since this convention was not domesticated properly, as required by Section 12, the EFCC legality is in question, and the anti-graft agency should not have the authority to operate in states that did not approve of the convention or the act. This raises significant concerns about whether a federal institution can impose its will on states without their consent.
The legal suit was initiated by the Kogi State government and supported by 18 other states, including Ondo, Edo, Oyo, Ogun, Nasarawa, Kebbi, Katsina, Sokoto, Jigawa, Enugu, Benue, Anambra, Plateau, Cross River, and Niger. The Supreme Court has set October 22 for the hearing of the case, with a seven-member panel of justices led by Justice Uwani Abba-Aji presiding over the matter. The outcome of the case will determine whether the EFCC continues to operate as it has done for nearly two decades or if its powers will be curtailed or even abolished in some states.
On the other hand, the EFCC has expressed its dismay at the suit, with its Director of Public Affairs, Wilson Uwujaren, arguing that the call for the overhaul of the institution is driven by individuals who are feeling the heat of its anti-corruption work. Uwujaren strongly defended the commission, stating that the EFCC is vital to Nigeria’s fight against corruption and that questioning the EFCC legality at this point would harm the country’s progress in addressing the deeply rooted issue of corruption. According to him, without the EFCC, Nigeria would struggle to combat the widespread corruption that continues to plague the nation.
Uwujaren went on to argue that those pushing for the dissolution of the EFCC see it as a threat because of its effective work in exposing corrupt practices. He emphasized that Nigerians should not be misled by the agenda of those behind the suit, as their real intention is to derail the commission’s fight against corruption and accountability. In his view, the EFCC has made significant contributions to the country’s progress, and dismantling the institution would be detrimental to Nigeria’s efforts to maintain transparency and accountability in public offices.
The controversy surrounding the EFCC legality has also sparked a heated debate among legal professionals and public figures. Two prominent lawyers, Dr. Olisa Agbakoba and Femi Falana, have taken opposing stances on the matter. Dr. Olisa Agbakoba, a former President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), is of the opinion that the EFCC is unlawfully constituted. He recently wrote a letter to the National Assembly, emphasizing his belief that the EFCC was not established according to the powers of the National Assembly. He argues that the EFCC is an unconstitutional organization, and its existence exceeds the legal authority of the National Assembly to create such an institution. For him, the EFCC legality should be reassessed as it does not conform to the constitution’s requirements.
Three days after Agbakoba’s letter, human rights lawyer Femi Falana responded with a contrary view. Falana argued that Agbakoba’s position on the EFCC legality was misguided. He pointed out that Agbakoba’s argument is based on the premise that the establishment of the EFCC violates the principles of federalism. However, Falana insisted that the EFCC was lawfully established by the National Assembly and plays a crucial role in the fight against corruption. He believes that Agbakoba’s concerns do not align with the broader need for a federal anti-corruption institution that addresses corruption across all states and tiers of government.
The debate over EFCC legality has drawn attention from other public figures as well. Chico Onumah, the Executive Director of the Africa Center for Media Information and Literacy, reacted to the lawsuit, dismissing the claims that the EFCC was unconstitutionally established. According to Onumah, the EFCC was set up by an Act of the National Assembly, and it went through all the necessary processes required by law. He further argued that the laws that created the EFCC are not in violation of the constitution, and the agency remains a legal and necessary institution in Nigeria’s ongoing battle against corruption.
Onumah also highlighted that the EFCC has made important strides in fighting corruption, although there is always room for improvement. He pointed out that corruption remains one of the country’s biggest challenges, and the EFCC has been instrumental in addressing this issue. While there is always the possibility for the EFCC to improve its effectiveness, its existence and legal foundation are, in Onumah’s view, beyond question.
Kolawole Oluwadare, Deputy Director of the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP), also weighed in on the EFCC legality debate. He reinforced that both the constitutionality and functionality of the EFCC are not in doubt. According to Oluwadare, the EFCC plays a crucial role in Nigeria’s anti-corruption framework, and any challenge to its legality must be carefully scrutinized. He questioned the motivations behind the state governors’ lawsuit, suggesting that it could be a ploy to weaken the fight against corruption. Oluwadare emphasized that Nigerians who support transparency and economic growth should be wary of any efforts to undermine the EFCC’s work.
Auwal Rafsjani, Executive Director of the Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC), offered a more critical view of the governors’ actions. He condemned the lawsuit, stating that it threatens not only the fight against corruption but also the autonomy of local governments. Rafsjani argued that the legal battle is an attempt by some governors to undermine institutions that hold public officials accountable. He expressed concern that the outcome of this case could have far-reaching consequences, not just for the EFCC but also for other anti-corruption and law enforcement agencies such as the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) and the Nigeria Police Force.
Rafsjani’s critique of the lawsuit raises broader questions about the motivation behind the challenge to the EFCC legality. He suggested that the governors may be attempting to dismantle structures that ensure accountability and transparency at the grassroots level. His comments point to a wider concern that weakening the EFCC could set a dangerous precedent, affecting not only federal institutions but also local governance structures that rely on the rule of law and institutional checks on corruption.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on the EFCC legality will have a significant impact on Nigeria’s legal and political landscape. If the court sides with the governors, it could alter the way anti-corruption institutions operate in the country, potentially reducing the EFCC’s influence in some states. On the other hand, if the court upholds the EFCC’s legal status, it would affirm the commission’s role as a key player in the fight against corruption. Regardless of the outcome, this case highlights the complex interplay between federal and state powers in Nigeria, and the ongoing struggle to balance constitutional principles with the need for effective governance.