A human rights organisation, Society for Rule of Law in Nigeria (SRLN) has commended the state governments which are demanding the scrap of three anti-corruption agencies at the Supreme Court, describing it as a sure bet for true federalism in Nigeria.

The organisation said rather than acting like the suit was an attack against it, the Federal Government should join hands with the States to ensure that the Supreme Court upholds the constitution and sets the country on the path of real federalism.

Arise News reports that the plaintiffs in the suit with Ref. No: SC/178/2023 are contending that the Federal Government cannot, under any guise, control funds appropriated by Houses of Assembly of the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs: Kogi, Kebbi, Katsina, Sokoto, Jigawa, Enugu, Oyo, Benue, Anambra, Plateau, Cross-River, Ondo, Niger, Edo, Bauchi, Adamawa, Taraba, Ebonyi and Imo states are asking the Supreme Court to nullify the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Independent Corrupt Practices and Other-Related Offences Commission (ICPC), Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU) and Proceeds of Crime Acts, all rooted in United Nations Convention and protocol, having not been ratified by the Houses of Assembly of the Plaintiffs in line with Section 12 of the 1999 constitution.

But Nasarawa and Ogun states, which are parties to the suit, are only contesting the NFIU cash withdrawal limit guidelines.

The FG in its preliminary objection dated October 17, 2024 and filed by the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), through a team of lawyers led by the Director of Civil Appeals, Ministry of Justice, T.A. Gazali (SAN), asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the suit filed by 19 State governments, challenging the constitutionality of the laws establishing anti-corruption agencies in the country.

While arguing that the Apex Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the AGF added that ?the plaintiffs were aggrieved by the action of the Federal Government, through its agencies like EFCC, Independent Corrupt Practice, and other related offences Commission, NFIU.?

Reacting to the suit, the SRLN in a statement by its Coordinator, Dr Chima Ubeku, said it was strange that the Federal Government was employing sentiments and at the same time trying to bully the States.

According to the CSO, by insinuating in its objection to the suit that the States that were only seeking to deepen true federalism in Nigeria, were doing so out of hatred for the three anti-corruption agencies was unacceptable.

Ubeku said, ?Nigeria is a federation established by the constitution, which gave distinctive functions to the federating units and the federation is not one in which the Federal Government, which is just one of the federating units can act like the godfather and the other federating units as its godchildren.

?Most importantly, institutions fighting corruption in Nigeria should be built on the foundation of the law, not sentiments and emotions. More so that the greatest corruption is disobedience to the constitution of the country by establishing anti-corruption agencies without total compliance with the constitution.

?Therefore, instead of trying to present the States that are plaintiffs in the suit as haters of the anti-corruption agencies, the Federal Government should be concerned with its primary duty of protecting the constitution of the country.

?The 1999 constitution is very clear on the areas the National Assembly has exclusive preserve to make laws, the areas the States have and the areas both the National and State Assemblies share legislative powers.

?It is a fact that the Acts in dispute, being rooted in United Nations Convention and protocol do not fall on any of those categories, as a result of which compliance with Section 12 of the 1999 constitution was a mandatory requirement.

?In the initial defence to the suit, the AGF did not deny that the Acts were rooted in the United Nations Convention; he only said that the concurrence of states of the federation as stakeholders was not necessary for the validity of the Acts. The implication of this is that compliance with Section 12 of the 1999 constitution was not necessary for the validity of the Acts.

?It is our opinion that the Supreme Court should be allowed to adjudicate on this suit, without the plaintiffs being branded haters of the Federal Government?s anti-corruption agencies. Also, rather than trying to sustain the obvious illegality of the establishment of the agencies, the Federal Government should rather correct the errors and get them properly established in accordance with the constitution.? (AriseNews TV, excluding headline)

Update news