On October 22, the Supreme Court will hear a significant constitutional challenge brought by 16 state governments against the establishment and powers of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) under its founding Act. Initially spearheaded by the Kogi State Government, the lawsuit has expanded to include several other states, all contesting the procedural legitimacy of the EFCC Act.
Legal analysts have raised questions about the underlying motives of this coalition of states. While the case is formally rooted in concerns about constitutional federalism and the proper delineation of state and federal powers, it’s possible that this legal action also reflects deeper strategic efforts to curtail federal oversight into state-level financial practices. The states, led by Kogi, argue that the EFCC Act was established without the required legislative approval from state Houses of Assembly, in violation of Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
The constitutional argument hinges on the assertion that the EFCC Act, being based on international conventions like the UN Convention against Corruption, was enacted without the majority consent of state assemblies, rendering it inapplicable to states that never ratified the convention. If the states are successful, this case could set a precedent that significantly limits the EFCC’s capacity to investigate state financial affairs, particularly regarding the management of local government funds.
While no official accusations have been made against any specific individual state officials, observers believe the legal strategy may serve as a calculated attempt to shield state governments from further probes by federal anti-graft agencies. The Kogi State government, in particular, has been involved in high-profile disputes with the EFCC, notably concerning allegations of mismanagement of bailout funds, which were rigorously denied by state representatives.
Political commentators have noted that, regardless of the constitutional validity of the lawsuit, the outcome could be seen as a broader challenge to the reach of federal anti-corruption efforts. By consolidating their efforts, these states are effectively questioning whether the federal government has the legal jurisdiction to impose anti-corruption regulations on states without their explicit consent.
The case has the potential to reshape the landscape of Nigerian federalism, redefining the boundaries of authority between federal agencies and state governments. Legal practitioners are closely watching how the Supreme Court adjudicates this matter, as the ruling could either reinforce or drastically curtail the role of the EFCC in state-level financial governance.
As the October 22 hearing approaches, this high-stakes legal confrontation continues to spark debate about the future of anti-corruption enforcement and the balance of power in Nigeria’s federal system.
Fore details about the Supreme Court to Hear EFCC Act Challenge by States
