[Editoria] Upholding State Rights: Why the Supreme Court Must Rein in Federal Overreach on Anti-Corruption Agencies
As Nigeria awaits the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of sixteen states challenging the Attorney-General of the Federation, a significant question of constitutional authority comes into focus. This legal battle goes beyond the scope and powers of agencies like the EFCC and ICPC; it underscores the struggle between federal overreach and the rights of states under Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution. At its core, the suit represents a pivotal moment for Nigerian federalism, aiming to clarify the boundary between state and federal authority.
The plaintiffs, sixteen Nigerian states, argue that the EFCC, ICPC, and similar agencies were established based on the United Nations Convention against Corruption. However, the treaty supporting their establishment was never ratified through the constitutional process mandated by Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution. This section stipulates that no international treaty may have the force of law in Nigeria unless approved by both the National Assembly and the Houses of Assembly in each state. In bypassing these steps, the federal government disregarded the constitutional rights of states to participate in the ratification of treaties that impact their jurisdictions. Consequently, the states have asked the Supreme Court to nullify the laws that created these agencies, asserting that they lack the necessary constitutional foundation.
This is not an abstract legal issue. The powers of the EFCC and ICPC are expansive and have profound implications for governance and justice across the country. Critics have pointed out that these agencies, intended to combat corruption impartially, often serve as tools of political oppression. Over the years, allegations have mounted that they selectively prosecute individuals aligned with opposition parties or those who are perceived as threats to the federal government. This selective approach has not only undermined their credibility but also fostered a climate where corruption can flourish under the protection of political favor.
The current case raises an essential question: Can Nigerians expect a truly independent anti-corruption agency if it operates outside constitutional boundaries? Until agencies like the EFCC are re-established with a legitimate, constitutional foundation, they will continue to function more as instruments of political power than as true enforcers of justice.
The political stakes in this case are high, and it has not escaped notice that the federal government is reportedly applying intense pressure to influence the outcome. Over the past few weeks, reports surfaced of federal agents lobbying states to withdraw from the lawsuit, culminating in the suspension of Benue State’s Attorney General. This level of interference reflects just how crucial the case’s outcome is for the federal government and its control over anti-corruption initiatives.
Yet, amid these pressures, there is reason for hope. Newly appointed Chief Justice Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun has publicly committed to protecting judicial independence and has reaffirmed her dedication to transparency and fairness in Nigeria’s courts. Her pledge that the judiciary will operate free from external influence offers a glimmer of optimism that the Supreme Court will deliver a judgment based on the principles of justice and constitutional integrity.
The ruling in this case could set a historic precedent for Nigeria. By affirming the plaintiffs’ position, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to rein in federal overreach, uphold the rights of states, and reaffirm the constitutional framework that defines the balance of power in Nigeria. Upholding the states’ challenge would not only correct the overreach that established these agencies but would also set a new standard for how the federal government interacts with international treaties, ensuring that all such agreements are fully in line with the constitution.
Ultimately, this case is about more than the fate of the EFCC and ICPC; it is about honoring the integrity of Nigeria’s foundational legal document. For Nigerians to have true and impartial anti-corruption efforts, our agencies must be established within constitutional boundaries. The Supreme Court must rise to the occasion and reaffirm the rights of states, sending a clear message that federal power has limits and that true governance can only be achieved within the bounds of the law.
As we await the court’s decision, we call on the judiciary to stand firm in defense of constitutional principles, federalism, and the rights of the states. This case represents an opportunity to steer Nigeria toward a future where the rule of law prevails, and anti-corruption agencies serve the people rather than political interests.
Post Comment