A Federal High Court sitting in Awka, Anambra state capital in Southeast Nigeria has dismissed a suit filed by the Anambra State Government challenging the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s power to investigate its finances, describing it as factually and forensically lacking in merit.
In a statement by the EFCC to journalists in Awka, the court held that the Commission is well in the rights of its powers under the law to carry out such investigations.
The State government had approached the court presided over by Justice Nnamdi Dimgba to determine whether under the Federal System of Government, with the constitutional doctrine of Separation of Powers, “the appropriation, disbursement and or administration of funds belonging to a State Government is subject to investigation by the EFCC being an agency of the Federal Government”
In a suit number FHC/AWK/CS/22/2022 filed by the Government of Anambra State (1st Plaintiff) and Attorney- General of Anambra State( 2nd Plaintiff) against the EFCC( 1st Defendant) and Attorney–General of the Federation( 2nd Defendant), the Plaintiffs sought resolutions of the following eight questions:
- Whether under the Federal System of Government established by Section 2 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), and the doctrine of Separation of Powers established and provided by Sections 4, 5 and 6 thereof, the appropriation, disbursement and or administration of funds belonging to the Government of a State is subject to investigation by the 1st Defendant as an agency of the Federal Government.
- Whether the power of the 1st Defendant, as an agency of the Federal Government, is not restricted to the matters set out in the Exclusive Legislative List contained in Part I of the Second Schedule to the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).
- Whether the appropriation, disbursement and or administration of funds belonging to the Government of a State are not matters within the Concurrent Legislative List contained in Part II of the Second Schedule to the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria(as amended).
- Whether from a community reading of Sections 80, 120, 121, 125, 126, 128 and 129 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) the power and function to investigate the appropriation, disbursement and or administration of the public funds/accounts of the Government of a State is not reserved for the House of Assembly of the State.
- Whether from a community reading of Sections 80, 120, 121, 125, 126, 128 and 129 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), the 1st Defendant can usurp the constitutional powers and functions of the House of Assembly of a State to investigate the appropriation, disbursement and or administration/management of the funds of a State Government, including the public funds/accounts of the Government of the State which have been appropriated by the State House of Assembly in the exercise of its constitutional mandate.
- Whether from a community reading of Sections 80, 120, 121, 125, 126, 128 and 129 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), the 2nd Defendant can usurp the constitutional power and function of the House of Assembly of a State to investigate the appropriation, disbursement and or administration/management of the public funds/accounts of the Government of the State.
- Whether from a community reading of Sections 80, 120, 121, 125, 126, 128 and 129 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), the 1st Defendant can purport to investigate the appropriation, disbursement and or administration of the public funds/accounts of the Government of a State without any report or input from the House of Assembly of the State.
Holding the general view that for all circumstances only a State House of Assembly, to the exclusion of any other body, including the 1st Defendant (EFCC), can investigate and detect corrupt practices in the financial affairs of a State.
“This Court notes the collaborative and harmonious relationship that exists in most states of the federation between the executive organ which manage the state finances and the legislative organ which is mandated to check them to expose corruption. This collaborative and harmonious relationship is not always a positive thing but can also be very negative, especially in circumstances where the leadership of the executive organ is very overbearing, or the leadership of both houses are manned or dominated by political allies.
“In that sort of situation, no real independence of the legislature exists and the idea that the state legislature possesses and can exercise the ability to detect financial crimes in the management of the state resources by the executive government is more theoretical and academic rather than real.
“For all you know, the legislature may well be deeply involved with the executive in the very ills which they are supposed to be detecting and exposing. It is exactly that state of affairs, a matter of our present reality that makes the existence and intervention of an external force outside of the framework of a state’s governance system, not only inevitable but also very desirable and necessary.”
While dismissing the action, the judge further said, “ I have also noted, and thus hold, that all the addressees of the EFCC letters (Exhibit 1) as fully described above, including all those which the EFCC by the letters referenced, demand that they should be released for an interview to obtain the clarification needed for the Commission to establish if the offences which the Commission said it was investigating such as fraudulent misappropriation of funds and the like have been committed, all qualify as “persons” or, “authority” from whom by law, the Commission is entitled to receive information from.
“They are indeed, all subjects of the EFCC’s exercise of its powers under the law.”
