CSOs Condemn Suit Challenging EFCC Legality By Kogi, Others

A civil society organization, CSO, the Resource Centre for Human Rights and Civic Education, CHRICED, has expressed concern over a lawsuit filed by Kogi State, with the support of other states, to challenge the legality of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC.

DAILY POST reports that the suit filed at the Supreme Court by the Kogi State Government against the Federal Government, is also challenging the powers of the EFCC to probe state government finances.

At a hearing on October 8, 2024, the Supreme Court granted the request of 15 other states to be made parties to the suit as co-plaintiff with Kogi.

The 15 states are Ondo, Edo, Oyo, Ogun, Nassarawa, Kebbi, Katsina, Sokoto, Jigawa, Enugu, Benue, Anambra, Plateau, Cross-River and Niger.

In a statement on Saturday, CHRICED Executive Director, Ibrahim M. Zikirullahi, noted that the suit is a “new level of corruption fighting back.”

According to Zikirullahi, the move by the states to question the constitutionality of the EFCC signals a troubling attempt to undermine the authority of the anti-graft agency and thereby entrench corruption in Nigeria’s governance.

Zikirullahi noted that the state governments involved in the lawsuit do not represent their constituents’ views, stressing that their action marks a significant setback in the fight against corruption.

CHRICED also faulted the Supreme Court for deciding to entertain the suit.

“The implications of this lawsuit are serious. By questioning the EFCC’s legitimacy, these states threaten a vital institution essential for combating financial crimes, potentially encouraging corrupt officials and undermining the rule of law and governance integrity in Nigeria.

“Moreover, it is particularly alarming that the Supreme Court has chosen to entertain such a frivolous case. This decision not only poses a serious threat to the anti-corruption fight in Nigeria but also raises significant concerns about the integrity of the Nigerian judiciary. The judiciary has faced substantial criticism for a series of controversial rulings and frivolous injunctions in recent times, and this case could further erode public confidence in its ability to uphold justice and protect the interests of the Nigerian people.

“CHRICED firmly cautions that should the judiciary acquiesce to the unacceptable demands of these infamous governors; it would not only further diminish the respect that Nigerians hold for the judiciary but would also signify an explicit endorsement of corruption by the highest court in the land. Such a scenario would send a chilling message to citizens and institutions alike, suggesting that the fight against corruption is not only futile but actively undermined by those in positions of power,” the statement noted.

Further condemning the lawsuit, Zikirullahi accused the governors of the states involved in the matter of ganging up to shield themselves from accountability.

“It is particularly noteworthy that in this legal challenge against the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), these shameless 16 governors have set aside their religious, political, and ethnic differences, to protect corruption in Nigeria. This unprecedented alliance reveals a disturbing consensus to shield themselves from accountability, prioritizing personal interests over the welfare of the Nigerian people.

“These governors must realize that history will label them as unpatriotic figures who obstructed Nigeria’s fight against corruption. Their actions will be seen as a breach of public trust and a clear example of how those in power can undermine justice for personal gain, portraying them as obstacles to the reform and ethical governance urgently needed in the country.”

The CSO further frowned at the role being played by some serving governors in corruption investigations concerning their predecessors.

“A notable example is Kogi State Governor Ahmed Usman Ododo, who is shielding his predecessor, Yahaya Bello, from arrest related to serious fraud allegations totaling over N110 billion allegedly orchestrated during Bello’s tenure from 2015 to 2023. Despite the gravity of these charges, Bello avoided arrest.

Since the EFCC began investigating Bello, Governor Ododo has used his gubernatorial immunity to obstruct the agency’s efforts. This obstruction appears to be supported by federal security forces, raising concerns about state complicity in protecting corrupt officials. A recent drama staged by Governor Ododo and Bello at the EFCC premises highlights this troubling dynamic and suggests collusion to undermine anti-corruption efforts.

“Therefore, CHRICED is not at all surprised at the recent lawsuit initiated by the Kogi State government, which challenges the legality of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). This legal action is being represented by the attorney of Governor Yahaya Bello, and it serves as yet another manifestation of the resistance faced by anti-corruption efforts in Nigeria. The move reflects a broader trend of pushback against institutions that are designed to uphold accountability and transparency in governance,” the statement said.

The group urged Kogi governor, Ododo, to proceed with caution, noting that the power he wields is temporary and can be lost.

In the same vein, CHRICED stressed that the Presidency cannot feign ignorance regarding the “severe and ongoing assaults on the EFCC”.

“These attacks have not only undermined the Commission’s ability to function effectively but have also jeopardized the safety of its personnel and their families. The audacity displayed by Governor Ododo in targeting the EFCC and its mission, particularly in the absence of a proportional response from the Federal Government, suggests deeper implications about the political climate and the ongoing fight against corruption in Nigeria.

“We urge Chief Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun to recognize this case as a pivotal moment in her judicial career. Its resolution will have lasting implications for judicial integrity and the fight against corruption in Nigeria. It is crucial that she treats this case with the seriousness it deserves, considering its potential impact on the rule of law,” the statement added.

What are your thoughts on this development? Let us know in the comments section.