Connect with us

News

Supreme Court to rule on 16 govs’ suit against EFCC today

Published

on

Following the suit filed by the 19 state governments contesting the constitutionality of the laws that established the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission in the country, the Supreme Court is set to rule on their request today.

The governors and the EFCC are eagerly awaiting the judgment of the apex court, which would confirm the legality or otherwise of the anti-graft commission.

The state governments, in their suit, had argued that the Supreme Court, in Dr Joseph Nwobike Vs Federal Republic of Nigeria, held that it was a United Nations Convention against corruption that was reduced into the EFCC Establishment Act and that in enacting the law in 2004, the provision of Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, was not followed.

They argued that in bringing a convention into Nigerian law, the provision of Section 12 must be complied with.

Advertisement

According to the plaintiffs, the provision of the Constitution necessitated the majority of the states’ houses of assembly agreeing to bring the convention in before passing the EFCC Act and others, which was allegedly never done.

The argument of the states in their present suit, which had reportedly been corroborated by the Supreme Court in the previous case mentioned, is that the law, as enacted, could not be applied to states that never approved of it, in accordance with the provisions of the Nigerian constitution.

Hence, they argued that any institution so formed should be regarded as an illegal institution.

The suit was initiated by the Kogi State government and joined by the Ondo, Edo, Oyo, Ogun, Nasarawa, Kebbi, Katsina, Sokoto, Jigawa, Enugu, Benue, Anambra, Plateau, Cross-River and Niger.

Advertisement

A seven-member panel of justices, led by Justice Uwani Abba-Aji, on Tuesday, fixed October 22 for a hearing.

The EFCC, however, expressed dismay over the call for the overhaul of their institution, stating that those pushing for such are “feeling the heat of its work.”

The EFCC’s Director of Public Affairs, Wilson Uwujaren, disclosed this in an interview on Channels Television’s The Morning Brief programme on Monday.

Uwujaren defended the significance of the commission, stating that Nigerians needed to fight against corruption.

Advertisement

“We are shocked by what is happening. Nigerians should see through this shenanigan and oppose it because I don’t see how this country can survive without the EFCC, given the kind of corruption problem that we have. Nigeria cannot do without the EFCC.

“I am worried that, with the kind of problem we have with corruption in this country, some people would go to court to challenge the legality of the EFCC.

“For citizens in their states, I am not sure that the EFCC is their greatest problem. I doubt that this is the case. What you see playing out is simply people who are feeling the heat of the work of the EFCC and who want to derail what is going on within the EFCC.

“They see the EFCC as a threat, which is what is playing out. I think Nigerians can see through the gimmick of those who are behind the challenge to the legality of the commission,” Uwujaren said.

Advertisement

The EFCC official noted that those behind the call for the overhaul were determined to “derail” the commission’s anti-corruption fight.

“So, people who are concerned about transparency and accountability will wish for the EFCC to be ‘killed’. Let me use the word ‘killed’ because that is the agenda.

“They simply want to derail the fight against corruption because they don’t want accountability in their domains,” he said.

Meanwhile, lawyers and Senior Advocates, Dr Olisa Agbakoba and Femi Falana, have expressed divergent views on the constitutionality of the EFCC.

Advertisement

Agbakoba, a former President of the Nigerian Bar Association, wrote to the National Assembly about constitutional issues related to law enforcement agencies in Nigeria and factors inhibiting the government’s objective of abolishing corruption, as stated in Section 13 of the Constitution.

In two separate letters to the Senate and House of Representatives, dated October 14, 2024, he stated that the EFCC was an unlawful organisation that he believed was “unconstitutionally established.”

He said, “I very strongly believe the EFCC is unconstitutionally established. The powers under which it was established go beyond the powers of the National Assembly. The EFCC is an unlawful organisation.”

However, three days later, Falana, a human rights activist, in his letter to the National Assembly, opposed Agbakoba’s view.

Advertisement

He insisted that the former NBA president’s position was based on the premise that the establishment of the EFCC violated the basic principles of federalism.

The Executive Director of Africa Center for Media Information and Literacy, Chico Onumah, reacting to the suit, noted that there is nothing unconstitutional about EFCC as the laws that brought about its existence went through due process.

“The commission was set up by an Act over two decades ago and I don’t imagine that there is anything wrong with that.

“As far as I know, the laws that led to the setting up of the commission went through the due process.

Advertisement

“The EFCC I know is a legal institution, the laws that set it up are there like ICPC and it went through the normal process. What is unconstitutional about EFCC? The constitution empowers the National Assembly to pass laws like this so I don’t see anything unconstitutional about this.

“They are legal institutions and I see nothing unconstitutional about the anti-corruption agencies,” he said.

Speaking further he noted that the EFCC had been doing its fair share in the fight against corruption, even though there was room for improvement.

“They have been able to fight corruption. You can’t imagine where we are coming from and where we are today. Corruption is one of the biggest challenges in this country and whether we like it or not, these agencies have contributed their quotas.

Advertisement

“Of course, there’s room for more to do better but within the limited resources and manpower, I think they’ve done fairly well,” he added.

The Deputy Director of the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project, Kolawole Oluwadare, stressed that the functionality and constitutionality of EFCC were not in doubt.

He said, “The constitutionality of the EFCC is not in doubt. The functionality of EFCC as an anti-corruption agency is also not in doubt.

“If the legal argument was made four years ago on the constitutionality of EFCC, the question that Nigerians who are interested in the transparent and economic growth of Nigeria on the state governors suit is to ask what is the end game and what are they afraid of?”

Advertisement

The Executive Director of the Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre, Auwal Rafsjani, condemned the state governments’ action, stating that the suit threatened not only the fight against corruption but also the autonomy of local governments—a fundamental pillar of grassroots democracy.

He said, “The recent legal battles waged by these governors represent a blatant disregard for the rule of law and an attempt to undermine Nigeria’s progress in establishing institutions that hold public officials accountable.

“This calls for deep concern and unequivocal condemnation of the recent actions of some state governors targeted at EFCC, Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit and by implications other anti-corruption agencies in the country, such as the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission, the Code of Conduct Bureau and key law enforcement agencies like the Nigeria Police Force; preparatory to the commencement of full implementation of the recent Supreme Court judgment with regards to local government autonomy in Nigeria.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

Judge sentences Trump in hush money case but fails to impose any punishment

Published

on

By Kayode Sanni-Arewa

President-elect Donald Trump was sentenced Friday in his hush money case, but the judge declined to impose any punishment, an outcome that cements his conviction but frees him to return to the White House unencumbered by the threat of a jail term or a fine.

Trump’s sentence of an unconditional discharge caps a norm-smashing case that saw the former and future president charged with 34 felonies, put on trial for almost two months and convicted by a jury on every count. Yet, the legal detour — and sordid details aired in court of a plot to bury affair allegations — didn’t hurt him with voters, who elected him to a second term.

Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan could have sentenced the 78-year-old Republican to up to four years in prison. Instead, he chose a sentence that sidestepped thorny constitutional issues by effectively ending the case but assured that Trump will become the first person convicted of a felony to assume the presidency.

Advertisement

Merchan said that like when facing any other defendant, he must consider any aggravating factors before imposing a sentence, but the legal protection that Trump will have as president “is a factor that overrides all others.”

“Despite the extraordinary breadth of those legal protections, one power they do not provide is that they do not erase a jury verdict,” Merchan said.

Trump, briefly addressing the court as he appeared virtually from his Florida home, said his criminal trial and conviction has “been a very terrible experience” and insisted he committed no crime.

The Republican former president, appearing on a video feed 10 days before he is inaugurated, again pilloried the case, the only one of his four criminal indictments that has gone to trial and possibly the only one that ever will.

Advertisement

“It’s been a political witch hunt. It was done to damage my reputation so that I would lose the election, and obviously, that didn’t work,” Trump said.

Trump called the case “a weaponization of government” and “an embarrassment to New York.”

With Trump 10 days from inauguration, Merchan had indicated he planned a no-penalty sentence called an unconditional discharge, and prosecutors didn’t oppose it.

Prosecutors said Friday that they supported a no-penalty sentence, but they chided Trump’s attacks on the legal system throughout and after the case.

Advertisement

“The once and future President of the United States has engaged in a coordinated campaign to undermine its legitimacy,” prosecutor Joshua Steinglass said.

Rather than show remorse, Trump has “bred disdain” for the jury verdict and the criminal justice system, Steinglass said, and his calls for retaliation against those involved in the case, including calling for the judge to be disbarred, “has caused enduring damage to public perception of the criminal justice system and has put officers of the court in harm’s way.”

As he appeared from his Florida home, the former president was seated with his lawyer Todd Blanche, whom he’s tapped to serve as the second-highest ranking Justice Department official in his incoming administration.

“Legally, this case should not have been brought,” Blanche said, reiterating Trump’s intention to appeal the verdict. That technically can’t happen until he’s sentenced.

Advertisement

Trump, a Republican, becomes the first person convicted of a felony to assume the presidency.

The judge had indicated that he planned the unconditional discharge — a rarity in felony convictions — partly to avoid complicated constitutional issues that would have arisen if he imposed a penalty that overlapped with Trump’s presidency.

Before the hearing, a handful of Trump supporters and critics gathered outside. One group held a banner that read, “Trump is guilty.” The other held one that said, “Stop partisan conspiracy” and “Stop political witch hunt.”

The hush money case accused Trump of fudging his business’ records to veil a $130,000 payoff to porn actor Stormy Daniels. She was paid, late in Trump’s 2016 campaign, not to tell the public about a sexual encounter she maintains the two had a decade earlier. He says nothing sexual happened between them, and he contends that his political adversaries spun up a bogus prosecution to try to damage him.

Advertisement

“I never falsified business records. It is a fake, made up charge,” the Republican president-elect wrote on his Truth Social platform last week. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, whose office brought the charges, is a Democrat.

Bragg’s office said in a court filing Monday that Trump committed “serious offenses that caused extensive harm to the sanctity of the electoral process and to the integrity of New York’s financial marketplace.”

While the specific charges were about checks and ledgers, the underlying accusations were seamy and deeply entangled with Trump’s political rise. Prosecutors said Daniels was paid off — through Trump’s personal attorney at the time, Michael Cohen — as part of a wider effort to keep voters from hearing about Trump’s alleged extramarital escapades.

Trump denies the alleged encounters occurred. His lawyers said he wanted to squelch the stories to protect his family, not his campaign. And while prosecutors said Cohen’s reimbursements for paying Daniels were deceptively logged as legal expenses, Trump says that’s simply what they were.

Advertisement

“There was nothing else it could have been called,” he wrote on Truth Social last week, adding, “I was hiding nothing.”

Trump’s lawyers tried unsuccessfully to forestall a trial. Since his May conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records, they have pulled virtually every legal lever within reach to try to get the conviction overturned, the case dismissed or at least the sentencing postponed.

The Trump attorneys have leaned heavily into assertions of presidential immunity from prosecution, and they got a boost in July from a Supreme Court decision that affords former commanders-in-chief considerable immunity.

Trump was a private citizen and presidential candidate when Daniels was paid in 2016. He was president when the reimbursements to Cohen were made and recorded the following year.

Advertisement

On one hand, Trump’s defense argued that immunity should have kept jurors from hearing some evidence, such as testimony about some of his conversations with then-White House communications director Hope Hicks.

And after Trump won this past November’s election, his lawyers argued that the case had to be scrapped to avoid impinging on his upcoming presidency and his transition to the Oval Office.

Merchan, a Democrat, repeatedly postponed the sentencing, initially set for July. But last week, he set Friday’s date, citing a need for “finality.” He wrote that he strove to balance Trump’s need to govern, the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling, the respect due a jury verdict and the public’s expectation that “no one is above the law.”

Trump’s lawyers then launched a flurry of last-minute efforts to block the sentencing. Their last hope vanished Thursday night with a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling that declined to delay the sentencing.

Advertisement

Meanwhile, the other criminal cases that once loomed over Trump have ended or stalled ahead of trial.

After Trump’s election, special counsel Jack Smith closed out the federal prosecutions over Trump’s handling of classified documents and his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden. A state-level Georgia election interference case is locked in uncertainty after prosecutor Fani Willis was removed from it. [AP]

Continue Reading

News

Emirship tussle: Celebration in Kano as A’Court rule in favour of Emir Sanusi

Published

on

By Kayode Sanni-Arewa

Celebration in the ancient city of Kano as a Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the 16th Emir of Kano, Muhammadu Sanusi II in the crucial legal battle over the Emirship stool.

Supporters of Emir Sanusi, including youths and elderly individuals, celebrated the victory with drums, dancing, and other festivities.

The judgement delivered by the Appeal Court which sat in Abuja has brought an end to the prolonged legal dispute that threatened the stability of the Kano Emirate.

Advertisement

Recall that the dispute began when Governor Abba Yusuf sometime in May 2024 dissolved all the Emirates and dethroned the 15th Emir of Kano, Aminu Ado Bayero while he was away from the state (the palace) and that which paved way for the reinstatement of the 16th Emir of Kano, Muhammadu Sanusi II who was immediately moved into the Kofar-Kudu palace to ascend the throne.

Upon return to the state, Bayero was forced to occupy the Nassarawa mini palace in a sit tight and where he currently carries out his courts.

Continue Reading

News

Akwa Ibom sacks all commissioners

Published

on

Governor Umo Eno of Akwa Ibom State has dissolved his cabinet, saying he needs to bring new professionals on board.

Speaking during a valedictory session at the exco chamber, on Friday, Eno said none of the commissioners under performed.

The governor who stated that though all of them delivered on their responsibilities, they had to be replaced for new set of professionals to be brought into the government.

“For me, if you were to be changed based on non-performance, I think none of the Commissioners would go. All of you have delivered and that’s why the Arise Agenda has succeeded. But we must come to the end of a season, start another season and keep moving,” he said.

Advertisement

He said a valedictory dinner will be held on Friday evening at the Banquet Hall, Government House, Uyo, in honour of the outgone exco members.

Most of the commissioners have been in office for almost 10 years as some of them served under former Governor Udom Emanuel.

The commissioners and advisers were said to have been retained to allow Governor Eno compensate them for the services they rendered since they were not rewarded by the time the last administration came to an end on May 29, 2023.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 Naija Blitz News