[Editoria] Upholding State Rights: Why the Supreme Court Must Rein in Federal Overreach on Anti-Corruption Agencies
As the Supreme Court nears a pivotal judgment on the case questioning the federal government’s authority over anti-corruption agencies such as the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC), the stakes for Nigeria’s federal system have rarely been higher.
The recent pressure reportedly exerted by federal authorities on certain state governors to withdraw from the case, as well as the suspension of Benue State’s Attorney General amid federal lobbying, raises troubling concerns about interference in this vital judicial process.
Governor Hyacinth Alia’s suspension of Benue’s Attorney General, allegedly due to federal pressure for the state to withdraw from the case, signals an unease at the federal level.
This unease suggests a fear that the Supreme Court could find fault in the establishment of federal agencies like the EFCC and ICPC without state-level legislation to support their jurisdiction in all states.
Such an outcome would reaffirm the need for all legislation impacting state governance to be domesticated in line with the 1999 Constitution, reinforcing each state’s autonomy within our federal system.
The essence of this legal challenge is not about evading accountability in the fight against corruption but ensuring that anti-graft actions are constitutionally rooted.
The law requires that states approve the presence of federal agencies within their borders through state legislation, particularly when these agencies hold powers over matters typically within state jurisdiction.
By pushing back against this constitutional challenge, the federal government appears to be compromising not only the fight against corruption but also the foundational principles of federalism.
If the aim is truly to root out corruption, then it must be done with a commitment to both justice and constitutional fidelity.
Anything less, such as selective enforcement or federal overreach, will only harm the fight against corruption. Recent instances, such as the unaddressed petition from the Kano State government against former Governor Abdullahi Ganduje, highlight the selective nature of investigations conducted by these agencies.
Failing to act on credible accusations while aggressively pursuing others raises valid questions about bias and fairness. Nigerians deserve anti-corruption bodies that are objective, transparent, and grounded in the rule of law.
This case is, in many ways, a test of Nigeria’s commitment to its own federal structure.
States should not be compelled to relinquish their constitutional powers under federal pressure. The Constitution, which forms the foundation of our governance, grants states a significant degree of independence; to undermine that is to weaken the fabric of our democracy.
As the Supreme Court prepares to deliver its ruling, it must do so with an unwavering focus on constitutional integrity. We trust that the court will affirm that no amount of lobbying or political pressure can supersede the Constitution.
A ruling in favor of the states would signal not a retreat from fighting corruption, but a step toward a more just, fair, and constitutionally sound approach to that battle.
Post Comment