Editorial: Supporting the Governors' Suit Against the Federal Government on EFCC and ICPC

As the Supreme Court prepares to render its judgment on the suit brought by 16 states against the Attorney-General of the Federation concerning the establishment of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), it is essential to recognize the constitutional implications of this case. 

The plaintiffs' contention that the Federal Government lacks the authority to control funds appropriated by state Houses of Assembly is a fundamental issue that demands our support.

At the heart of the suit is the assertion that the EFCC Act and related legislation are unconstitutional due to their foundation in the United Nations Convention against Corruption, which has not been ratified as required by Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution. 

The plaintiffs rightly argue that, without the ratification of these treaties by the Houses of Assembly, the federal government has overstepped its bounds, infringing upon the states’ rights to legislative participation. 

The Supreme Court’s previous ruling in Nwobike v. Federal Republic of Nigeria highlighted this point, affirming that the EFCC Act is indeed a product of an unratified convention.

This legal challenge is not merely a technicality; it embodies the struggle for federalism in Nigeria. The constitution clearly delineates the legislative powers of the National Assembly and the states, emphasizing that treaties cannot assume the force of law without state approval. 

The plaintiffs’ demand for the nullification of the EFCC, ICPC, and other related acts rests on a sound legal foundation and reflects the urgent need to uphold constitutional integrity.

Critically, the role of the EFCC has come under scrutiny, with many questioning its effectiveness as an anti-corruption body. For years, it has been perceived as a tool of political oppression, selectively targeting opponents of the federal government while allowing corrupt individuals within its ranks to evade justice. 

This lack of impartiality undermines the very purpose of establishing such agencies. Until the laws governing these bodies are comprehensively reviewed and aligned with constitutional mandates, true accountability and transparency will remain elusive.

The political stakes surrounding this case are high, and it is reasonable to fear that agents of the federal government may exert pressure on the Supreme Court to sway the outcome. Reports of intense lobbying by the federal government, including efforts to persuade states to withdraw from the suit, exemplify the kind of influence that could jeopardize the independence of the judiciary. The recent suspension of Benue State’s Attorney General, allegedly due to lobbying pressures, highlights the precarious nature of this situation.

However, there is hope that the Supreme Court will act in accordance with its principles of justice, as articulated by the newly appointed Chief Justice, Hon. Justice Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun. Her commitment to transparency and integrity within the judiciary signals a potential turning point. The judiciary must resist any external pressures that may seek to compromise its role as the guardian of the constitution.

Nigerians deserve a judiciary that is unyielding in its pursuit of justice and constitutional adherence. 

The governors’ lawsuit against the federal government represents a crucial stand for federalism, accountability, and the rule of law. As we await the Supreme Court's judgment, we remain hopeful that the justices will rise to the occasion, uphold constitutional integrity, and restore faith in our legal system. The path to genuine anti-corruption efforts in Nigeria begins with reaffirming the tenets of our constitution and ensuring that all laws are enacted with the consent and participation of the states.