1 month ago
34 ARTICLE AD
The 8th plaintiff, Benue State, in the suit challenging the constitutionality of the laws that established the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, currently before the Supreme Court, has officially applied to withdraw from the suit.
The Benue State Government, in an application obtained by our correspondent, dated October 23, 2024, and signed by Fidelis Mnyim on behalf of the Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice and Public Order of the state, disclosed its decision to withdraw from the suit.
It read “Take notice that the Attorney General of Benue State, who is the 8th plaintiff hereby discontinues this suit against the Attorney General of the Federation, the defendant”.
Benue State will become the fourth state to withdraw from the suit.
PUNCH Online reported that on Tuesday, October 22, during the hearing of the suit, three states—Anambra, Ebonyi, and Adamawa— informed the open court of their decision to no longer continue with the suit.
Anambra (9th plaintiff), Adamawa (16th plaintiff), and Ebonyi (18th plaintiff) separately made applications for withdrawal before the seven-member panel of justices.
The Attorney General of Anambra State, Professor Sylvia Ifemeje, told the court that she wished to withdraw from the suit, having filed a motion for withdrawal on October 20.
Similarly, the Attorney General of Ebonyi State, Ikenna Nwidagu, said, “My Lord, I filed a notice of withdrawal dated and filed October 21. My Lords, we pray this honourable Court strikes out the name of the 18th plaintiff.”
The Attorney General of Adamawa State, Afraimu Jingi, said, “My Lord, I have filed a notice of withdrawal of the suit. I am praying this Court to allow me to withdraw from the suit.”
The court accordingly struck out their suit following no opposition to their request by the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice.
Meanwhile, the Governor of Benue State, Rev. Fr. Hyacinth Alia had on Wednesday, directed the Attorney General of the State and Commissioner for Justice, Fidelis Mnyim, to proceed on an indefinite suspension for unilaterally joining Benue State as a plaintiff in the suit challenging the legality of EFCC.
The Governor gave the directive at the state Government House during a press conference on Wednesday, shortly after the Benue State Executive Council meeting.
He stated that “the suspension was necessitated by Mnyim’s ultra vires decision to join the state in a suit challenging the legality of anti-graft agencies, namely the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission”.
Adding that “No appointee is permitted to act unilaterally. No matter how pressing or urgent the issue is, one must resort to due consultations with me or appropriately brief me and seek my permission before acting, especially in a sensitive matter such as this.
“My administration is holding accountable those who embezzled money and drained our state dry. The EFCC and ICPC are assisting us in this effort.
“How can I now turn around and begin to challenge these watchdogs? I did not permit him to enter an appearance for the state. Because he acted on his own, I hereby suspend him indefinitely pending a satisfactory explanation of his actions.”
Kogi State and now 14 other states with the withdrawal of four, are challenging the legality of EFCC and other anti-corruption agencies in the country.
Nasarawa and Ogun, although parties in the suit, are specifically contesting the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit cash withdrawal limit guidelines.
The suit, which was originally instituted by Kogi State before being joined by other states, argues that the Supreme Court, in Dr Joseph Nwobike vs. the Federal Republic of Nigeria, held that the United Nations Convention against Corruption was incorporated into the EFCC Establishment Act. However, in enacting this law in 2004, the provisions of Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, were not followed.
The plaintiffs argue that when bringing a convention into Nigerian law, the provisions of Section 12 must be complied with.
According to the plaintiffs, the Constitution requires that a majority of state Houses of Assembly must agree to the adoption of the convention before laws like the EFCC Act and others can be passed, which they claim was never done.
The states’ argument in their present suit, which they assert has been corroborated by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned case, is that the law, as enacted, cannot be applied to states that did not approve of it, by the provisions of the Nigerian Constitution.
Therefore, they argue that any institution established under such circumstances should be considered illegal.
