EDITORIAL – Why States’ Suit On Legality Of EFCC Is A Call To Constitutional Integrity in Nigeria
Nigeria, as a democratic nation, prides itself on the principles of constitutional supremacy and the rule of law. However, the continued existence of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), established under the EFCC (Establishment) Act of 2004, raises critical questions about our commitment to these foundational tenets.
It is essential to recognize that the EFCC operates without the constitutional backing required for any legitimate institution in a democracy. The EFCC (Establishment) Act does not align with Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution, which stipulates that no treaty or law can hold legal force unless enacted by the National Assembly.
The provisions clearly delineate the processes for legislative action, highlighting that the National Assembly must ratify any law governing matters not included in the Exclusive Legislative List. The absence of constitutional endorsement for the EFCC sets a troubling precedent, undermining the rule of law and the integrity of Nigeria’s fledgling democracy.
Moreover, the functions attributed to the EFCC largely overlap with those already assigned to the police and other established law enforcement agencies. In a functioning democracy, state Houses of Assembly are equipped to probe the actions of their executives, including governors. There is no counterpart in the United States or any robust democracy that allows for a federal body to investigate state officials without explicit constitutional backing.
This duplication of roles not only breeds inefficiency but also raises concerns about the integrity and accountability of our democratic institutions.
The origins of the EFCC are equally troubling. Established during the presidency of Olusegun Obasanjo, the commission was purportedly created to combat corruption. However, it has often been perceived as a political tool used to intimidate and silence dissent.
This misuse of power highlights the potential for abuse inherent in an institution lacking constitutional legitimacy. Allowing the EFCC to continue without states’ input in its guidelines would signify a willingness to tolerate such abuses, fundamentally eroding public trust in our democratic processes.
The urgency of legalising the EFCC the right way cannot be overstated. Doing so would not only restore faith in our institutions but also align our practices with the principles of democracy that we espouse. The fate of the EFCC now rests in the hands of the Supreme Court, which must determine whether the commission’s functions are constitutionally valid.
The implications of this ruling extend beyond mere legalities; they will shape Nigeria’s democratic trajectory and its international standing.
If the EFCC is allowed to continue its operations without proper constitutional endorsement, it would amount to practising a distorted version of democracy—one that contradicts the principles of accountability, transparency, and justice.
Read Also:
Such a reality would represent a grievous assault on the very essence of democratic governance, essentially amounting to a rape of democracy itself.
Away from the unconstitutional status of the EFCC, though the agency has often been portrayed as the nation’s watchdog against corruption; however, a closer examination reveals a troubling narrative, where it has increasingly functioned as a political tool, wielded by those in power to intimidate and settle scores with perceived adversaries.
A glaring example of this manipulation can be seen in the case of former Kano State Governor Abdullahi Ganduje. Caught on camera allegedly receiving kickbacks, Ganduje’s actions sparked outrage and calls for accountability, particularly from current Governor Abba Yusuf.
Despite the mounting evidence and public demand for transparency, the EFCC has remained conspicuously silent. This silence is particularly striking given Ganduje’s continued prominence in the political arena, serving as the national chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC) under President Bola Tinubu’s administration.
The juxtaposition of Ganduje’s influence and the EFCC’s inaction casts a long shadow over the agency’s integrity and its commitment to combating corruption.
Similarly, former Zamfara Governor Bello Matawalle exemplifies the troubling trend of political impunity. Accused by his successor, Governor Dauda Lawal, of leaving the state in financial disarray—allegedly mismanaging an eye-watering ₦250 billion (approximately $325 million)—Matawalle has not faced the expected scrutiny. Instead, he has emerged as a significant player in the Tinubu administration, now serving as the Minister of State for Defense.
These allegations of complicity in financial ruin and even terrorist activities raise questions about the EFCC’s ability to pursue justice without political interference.
Without much ado, the time has come for Nigeria to decisively address the constitutional shortcomings of the EFCC. We must recognize that true democracy cannot flourish in the shadow of institutions that operate outside the law. Scrapping the EFCC is not merely a legal necessity; it is an imperative for safeguarding the integrity of Nigeria’s democracy. All eyes must be on the Supreme Court as it undertakes this vital interpretation, determining the future of our constitutional democracy.
This questionable trajectory raises serious concerns about its legitimacy and efficacy in combating corruption.
A glaring example of this manipulation can be seen in the case of former Kano State Governor Abdullahi Ganduje. Caught on camera allegedly receiving kickbacks, Ganduje’s actions sparked outrage and calls for accountability, particularly from current Governor Abba Yusuf.
Despite the mounting evidence and public demand for transparency, the EFCC has remained conspicuously silent. This silence is particularly striking given Ganduje’s continued prominence in the political arena, serving as the national chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC) under President Bola Tinubu’s administration.
This rise amidst allegations of complicity in financial ruin and even terrorist activities raises questions about the EFCC’s ability to pursue justice without political interference.
