As the Supreme Court prepares to deliver its judgment on the states' lawsuit challenging the legality of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC), and other federal anti-graft agencies, this case emerges as a decisive moment for Nigeria’s federal system and its judicial integrity.
The intense lobbying over the past weekend for states to withdraw from this case not only underscores its importance but also raises serious concerns about undue influence and pressure on the highest court in the land.
The recent decision by Governor Hyacinth Alia of Benue State to suspend his Attorney General, who had been defending Benue’s interests in the case, is a red flag.
This suspension came in response to pressures allegedly exerted by federal authorities pushing for Benue’s withdrawal from the lawsuit. Such maneuvers are troubling signs that the federal government may be feeling threatened by the possibility that the laws establishing agencies like the EFCC and ICPC could be deemed unconstitutional if not properly domesticated.
This development points to a lack of confidence in the legality of these agencies and raises questions about the federal government’s commitment to the rule of law.
The essence of this case rests on a simple yet foundational principle: no one, not even the federal government, is above the Constitution.
The 1999 Constitution demands that all laws binding the states be domesticated within those states to ensure alignment with the federal structure of governance.
The establishment of agencies like the EFCC and ICPC without proper legislative endorsement by state assemblies runs counter to this spirit, leaving their authority in question and potentially undermining the validity of their actions within state jurisdictions.
Moreover, if Nigeria is serious about combating corruption, it must do so in a manner that respects the rule of law and the principles enshrined in the Constitution.
By exerting pressure on states to withdraw from this case, the federal government risks portraying itself as unwilling to uphold these principles, further undermining public confidence in its anti-corruption agenda.
The Kano State government’s unaddressed petition against former Governor Abdullahi Ganduje serves as a glaring example of the selective attention often afforded by these agencies.
The EFCC’s inaction in that matter, despite compelling evidence, casts a shadow over its objectivity and raises concerns about double standards in its operations. Nigerians deserve an anti-graft framework that is impartial, legally sound, and free from political influence—a framework that serves justice rather than selective interests.
At its core, this case represents a test of Nigeria’s commitment to a fair and just federal system, where states retain their constitutional rights to self-governance within the bounds of the law.
Upholding the principles of federalism will not weaken the fight against corruption; rather, it will strengthen it by ensuring that anti-corruption efforts are transparent, accountable, and legally grounded.
As the Supreme Court prepares to rule, we hope the judgment will be guided solely by the merits of the case and not by external pressures or political lobbying.
Nigeria’s judicial system, already challenged by perceptions of bias and political influence, must seize this moment to affirm its independence and integrity.
Let this ruling serve as a reminder that all must submit to the Constitution, ensuring that the fight against corruption is not only vigorous but also constitutionally sound and beyond reproach.
0 Comments