Football fans in Nigeria are on edge as the Confederation of African Football (CAF) is set to announce its decision today on the contentious 2025 Africa Cup of Nations qualifying match between Nigeria and Libya.

The match, part of Group D, was marred by controversy after the Nigerian team experienced what has been described as inhumane treatment upon their arrival in Libya for the second leg against the Mediterranean Knights last Sunday.

The Nigeria Football Federation (NFF) lodged an official complaint with CAF following an incident where the Super Eagles were reportedly left stranded at the airport without support.

A video shared by the Eagles’ media team captured the players and officials surrounded by their luggage, apparently ignored by Libyan airport staff who were conversing in Arabic.

The logistical nightmare began when the Nigerian team’s flight was unexpectedly diverted to Al Abraq International Airport—over 200 kilometers from their intended destination in Benina, where the match was scheduled at the Martyrs of Benina Stadium.

The airport, typically used for hajj operations, lacked essential amenities, contributing to the exhaustion and frustration of the players and officials.

The absence of a welcoming team and the unavailability of arranged transportation compounded the difficulties, forcing the NFF to seek alternative travel arrangements.

The situation escalated when the Nigerian delegation was confined at the airport for more than 20 hours without access to food, water, or outside communication, leading to their decision to boycott the match.

The Libyan Football Federation responded to the complaints by alleging non-cooperation from the Nigerian side during both legs of the qualifiers, suggesting that the treatment received by the Libyan team in Nigeria was comparably challenging.

CAF President Patrice Motsepe addressed the issue during a press conference in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, stating that a thorough investigation was underway.

The football community, both in Nigeria and across Africa, is anxiously awaiting the outcome of CAF’s deliberations, which could have significant implications for the standings in Group D and the broader dynamics of the tournament qualifications.

Nigeria’s U-17 women’s national team, the Flamingos, secured a dramatic 1-0 victory over hosts Dominican Republic in the ongoing 2024 FIFA U-17 Women’s World Cup, thanks to a stunning 89th-minute goal by midfielder Shakirat Moshood.

The match, played early Wednesday in Santo Domingo, saw Moshood’s powerful left-footed strike from 25 yards beat the Dominican goalkeeper, marking her fourth goal of the tournament.

Earlier in the game, Moshood had an attempt ruled offside by the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) just 15 minutes in, while team captain Taiwo Afolabi forced the Dominican goalkeeper into a save shortly after.

Despite mounting pressure in the second half, it wasn’t until the final minutes that the Flamingos broke the deadlock.

The victory was the Flamingos’ third consecutive win, placing them at the top of Group A with nine points, ahead of Ecuador, hosts Dominican Republic, and New Zealand.

Nigeria’s young stars have been in dominant form throughout the tournament, netting eight goals and conceding just one in their previous group-stage matches.

Coach Bankole Olowokoore expressed his pride in the team’s performance, thanking Nigerians for their continued support.

He said, “I will not change our messages to Nigerians but to thank and appreciate them for their support. They should keep supporting us and having kept these vigils, it will not go in vain. Anytime they are watching us, we will give them joy, and we are going to make them proud. This is a promise that we made to them before we left Nigeria, and we are fulfilling the promise to them for them to be proud of us.”

The victory over the Dominican Republic was witnessed by a record-breaking crowd of 13,535 spectators, the highest attendance for any Dominican Republic national team match, according to the official FIFA U-17 Women’s World Cup X handle.

With their place in the quarterfinals secured, the Flamingos will next face the United States in a highly anticipated knockout stage clash.

Governors of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) are currently meeting in Abuja over the recent crisis rocking the opposition party.

The meeting which is ongoing in Abuja is being held at the lodge of the Bauchi State Governor, Bala Mohammed.

Apart from Mohammed, governors present include Siminalayi Fubara (Rivers), Ademola Adeleke (Osun), Dauda Lawal (Zamfara), Caleb Mutfwang (Plateau).

While others are being expected, members of the PDP National Working Committee (NWC), the Board of Trustees (BoT) as well as other prominent members of the party.

Although the agenda of the meeting is unavailable to journalists, issues about having a substantive chairman for the party, the convening of a national executive committee meeting, and preparations for the forthcoming Ondo state governorship election have dominated discussions in some of their recent meetings.

More to follow…

The government of Anambra State on Tuesday, October 22, announced plans to withdraw from the suit seeking to declare the operations of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, illegal.

The state, through its Attorney General, Prof. Sylvia Ifemeje, told the Supreme Court that it was no longer willing to be a part of the legal action that was originally instituted by Kogi state.

The withdrawal notice was dated October 20.

Anambra took the position on a day that Osun state, through its Attorney-General, Mr. Oluwole Bada, applied to be allowed to consolidate its grievance against the operations of the EFCC, with that of Kogi state.

Osun state told a seven-man panel of the apex court led by Justice Uwani Abba-Aji, that it is seeking the same reliefs that Kogi state listed against the EFCC.

Whereas Sokoto state, which was earlier joined as a co-plaintiff in the matter, did not send any legal representative at the resumed proceeding on Tuesday, other states that announced their appearances, were; Kogi, Kebbi, Katsina, Jigawa, Oyo, Benue, Plateau, Cross River, Ondo, Niger, Edo and Bauchi.

Others were; Adamawa, Taraba, Ebonyi, Imo and Nasarawa.

The Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, appeared as the sole defendant in the matter.

The AGF did not oppose Anambra state’s request to pull out of the case.

It will be recalled that 16 states of the federation had approached the Supreme Court to challenge the operations of the EFCC.

The states are contending that the anti-graft agency was not validly established by the then administration of President Olusegun Obasanjo.

It will be recalled that the EFCC was established by an Act of the National Assembly on December 12, 2002, by Obasanjo’s administration.

Following the appointment and confirmation of its pioneer Executive Chairman, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu and other administrative officers, by the Senate, the Commission commenced its operational activities on April 13, 2003, though its Establishment Act was later amended in 2004.

However, in the suit before the apex court, the states, through their respective Attorneys General, argued that section 12 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, was not complied with before the EFCC began its operations.

According to the plaintiffs, it was a mandatory provision of the Constitution that majority of the Houses of Assembly of States must vote and agree to the passage of the EFCC Act, insisting that it was not something that only the National Assembly was legally allowed to do.

The Supreme Court has reserved its judgment on a significant legal challenge brought by 16 state governments against the constitutionality of the laws that establish the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

The case, presided over by Justice Uwani Abba-Aji and a seven-member panel of justices, reached this phase on Tuesday after extensive arguments from the involved parties’ attorneys.

Originally initiated by the Kogi State Government through its Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, the suit has seen multiple states join as co-plaintiffs.

The states involved in the suit, marked SC/CV/178/2023, include Ondo, Edo, Oyo, Ogun, Nasarawa, Kebbi, Katsina, Sokoto, Jigawa, Enugu, Benue, Anambra, Plateau, Cross-River, and Niger.

In a turn of events, the Attorneys General of Anambra, Adamawa, and Ebonyi have withdrawn from the case, with the Supreme Court panel granting their request.

The suit addresses critical questions about the federal scope of anti-corruption enforcement, challenging the legal foundation of the EFCC’s establishment under current laws.

The decision of the Supreme Court will be keenly awaited, as it holds substantial implications for federal and state powers in the governance and administration of justice.

…Asks court order to void import licenses

…Demands N100bn damages for alleged sabotage

Dangote Refinery and Petrochemicals said yesterday it was settling out of court with the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited, NNPCL, and six others over import licences granted them by the Nigeria Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority, NMDPRA, to import petrol into the country.

Recall that the company had approached a Federal High Court in Abuja, praying it to nullify the licenses and also award it N100billion damages against the 1st defendant which is the NNPCL
However, in a statement last night, Dangote said it was ready to settle the case amicably with NNPCL and other defendants in what it described as an old case filed in June.

The statement, signed by the Group Chief Branding and Communications Officer, Anthony Chiejine, read: ‘’This is an old issue that started in June and culminated in a matter filed on Sept 6, 2024.

‘’Currently, the parties are in discussion since President Bola Tinubu’s directive on crude oil and refined product sales in naira initiative, which the Federal Executive Council, FEC, approved.
‘’We have made tremendous progress in that regard and events have overtaken this development. No party has been served with court processes and there is no intention of doing so. We have agreed to put a halt to the proceedings.

‘’It is important to stress that no orders have been made and there are no adverse effects on any party. We understand that once the matter comes up in January 2025, we will be in a position to formally withdraw the matter in court.’’

Dangote had in the suit, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1324/2024, queried the propriety of the licence issued to the defendants to bring refined petroleum products into the country when there is no shortfall in its production.

Other defendants in the suit are the Nigeria Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority, NMDPRA, AYM Shafa Limited, A.A. Rano Limited, T. Time Petroleum Limited, 2015 Petroleum Limited as well as Matrix Petroleum Services Limited.

The plaintiff is equally praying the court to award N100 billion in damages against the NMDPRA for allegedly continuing to issue import licenses to NNPCL and the other defendants for the import of petroleum products such as Automotive Gas Oil (AGO) and Jet Fuel (aviation turbine fuel) into Nigeria.

It told the court that the licences were issued to the defendants, “despite the production of AGO and Jet-A1 that exceeds the current daily consumption of petroleum products in Nigeria by the Dangote Refinery.”

Specifically, Dangote Refinery, among other things, applied for an order of injunction, restraining the 1st defendant (NMDPRA) from further issuing and/or renewing import licenses to the 2nd to 7th defendants or other companies to import petroleum products.

It further sought general damages in the sum of N100 billion against the 1st defendant, as well as an order of the court directing the 1st defendant to seal off all tank farms, storage facilities, warehouses, and stations used by the defendants for the storage of all refined petroleum products imported into Nigeria.

Other reliefs the plaintiff prayed for, included, “a declaration that by the provisions of Section 8(1) of the Nigerian Export Processing Zone Act (NEPZA), Sections 23(h) and 55(1) of the Companies Income Tax Act (CIT Act), Paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule to the CIT Act, Regulation 54(2)(a)(i) of the Dangote Industries Free Zone Regulation 2020, and the Finance Act, the plaintiff, being an entity duly registered as a Free-Zone Enterprise, is exempted from all federal, state, and local government taxes, levies, and other rates.

“A declaration that it is against the NEPZA Act, CIT Act, Finance Act, and Dangote Industries Free Zone Regulation 2020, as well as legislative intent, for the 1st Defendant to impose or threaten to impose on the plaintiff an additional financial obligation of a 0.5% levy meant for off-takers of petroleum products directly and an additional 0.5% wholesale levy in favour of the Midstream Downstream Gas Infrastructure Fund, MDGIF.

“An order of mandatory injunction directing the 1st Defendant to withdraw immediately all import licenses issued to the 2nd-7th defendants and other companies other than the plaintiff and other local refineries for the purpose of importing refined petroleum products into Nigeria.”

“An order of injunction restraining the 1st Defendant from imposing and demanding a 0.5% levy meant for off-takers of petroleum products directly and an additional 0.5% wholesale levy in favour of MDGIF or any other levy or sum against the plaintiff.”

According to the plaintiff, NMDPRA acted in breach of Sections 317(8) and (9) of the Petroleum Industry Act by issuing licenses for the importation of petroleum products to the defendants.

In the processes filed through a team of lawyers led by Mr Ogwu Onoja, SAN, the plaintiff, such licenses ought to be issued only when there is a shortfall of petroleum products in the country.

It urged the court to declare that NMDPRA violates its statutory responsibilities under the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) for not encouraging local refineries such as the one owned by the plaintiff.

In an affidavit deposed to by the Group General Manager of Government and Strategic Relations at Dangote Refinery, Ahmed Hashem, he told the court that import licenses granted to other companies by NMDPRA for the importation of AGO and Jet-A1 are crippling the plaintiff’s business which it committed substantial financial resources in billions of US dollars.

He averred that the plaintiff’s products are largely left unpatronized due to the actions of NMDPRA.
More so, the deponent told the court that NMDPRA has threatened to impose and demand a 0.5% levy on the plaintiff on wholesales and off-takers, as well as another 0.5% levy on wholesales to the Midstream and Downstream Gas Infrastructure Fund (MDGIF) via a letter dated June 10, 2024, contrary to statutory provisions that limit the implementation of levies on transactions within Free Zones.

He alleged a grand conspiracy and concerted effort by International Oil Companies and interests, in conjunction with the defendants, who are unhappy that Nigeria has an indigenous refinery ready to solve the lingering energy crisis and save the economy.

“The intervention of the honourable court has become necessary to stem the incessant violation of statutory provisions by the 1st Defendant in favour of other entities such as the 2nd to 7th defendants,” the plaintiff added.

Meanwhile, there were indications that the matter may not be heard by the court as a member of the plaintiff’s legal team, Mr George Ibrahim, SAN, notified the court yesterday that efforts to amicably resolve the issue were afoot.

He said the defendants had indicated their intention to explore an out-of-court settlement.
Consequently, Justice Inyang Ekwo adjourned the matter till January 20, 2025, for a report of settlement.

Today, the Supreme Court is slated to deliver a crucial verdict on the legality of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), following a lawsuit filed by 19 state governments.

These states contest the constitutional basis of the laws establishing the anti-graft agency.

This decision is eagerly anticipated by both the state governors and the EFCC, with significant implications for the agency’s operations across the nation.

The contention arises from a previous Supreme Court judgment in the case of Dr. Joseph Nwobike Vs. Federal Republic of Nigeria, where it was noted that the EFCC Establishment Act originated from a United Nations Convention against corruption.

The state governments argue that the enactment of the EFCC law in 2004 did not adhere to Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, which requires any international convention to be ratified by a majority of state assemblies before being domesticated into Nigerian law.

This lawsuit, initiated by Kogi State and supported by states including Ondo, Edo, and Oyo among others, posits that the EFCC, as currently constituted, operates unconstitutionally in states that did not ratify the convention.

They argue that any actions by the EFCC in these states are therefore illegal.

The seven-member panel, led by Justice Uwani Abba-Aji will determine the suit.

On the defense, the EFCC expressed concerns that the challenge to its framework stems from entities affected by its anti-corruption efforts.

The EFCC’s Director of Public Affairs, Wilson Uwujaren emphasized the necessity of the commission’s role in combating corruption during a recent interview on Channels Television’s The Morning Brief.

Uwujaren said, “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.”

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.

Today, October 22, is the day that has been set aside by the Supreme Court of Nigeria for the hearing and the consolidation of the suit brought before the Court in the matter between 16 states of the Federation and the Attorney General of the Federation to determine the legality or otherwise, to wit the constitutionality or otherwise also, of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU), the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) and the Proceeds of Crimes Act. The suit originally filed by the AG Kogi State- SC/CV/178/2023 - has now been joined by 15 other states. Out of these, 13 are expressly questioning the legality of the EFCC and similar anti-graft agencies, and they are asking the Supreme Court to nullify all such commissions created outside the province of Constitutional provisions. Two states – Ogun and Cross River States are challenging the assumed powers of the NFIU to dictate how much states can withdraw or control with regard to funds appropriated by the House of Assembly.  The co-plaintiffs and those who seek consolidation will appear today before a seven-member panel of the apex court led by Justice Uwani Abba-Aji. This is an interesting development, with regard to the public interest law dimension of the case, and the response from the public and stakeholders have been robust, plus the fact that the enabling framework for public institutions and the Constitution itself end up being strengthened when they are tested and interpreted in the courts. 

The issues in this case can be easily summarized as follows. One, the plaintiffs argue that the EFCC Act is unconstitutional. It is a product of a United Nations Convention against corruption, and was not ratified in accordance with Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). Section 12 of the Constitution says no treaty can have the force of law in Nigeria until it is ratified by a majority of all the Houses of Assembly in the Federation. The states argue that the EFCC Act cannot be applied to them because they were not party to it. They argue that the agencies lack the powers and the authority to investigate and prosecute matters related to the misappropriation of public funds. They cite Joseph Nwobike vs FRN as the authority to back up their claim.  The Defendant, the Attorney General of the Federation argues that the concurrence of the states as stakeholders was not necessary to make the EFCC Act valid.  Two, at least three states argue that the NFIU cannot investigate, requisition documents, arrest, or invite anyone with regard to how the states manage funds. Three, the states insist that they have the right to establish their own anti-graft agencies and not be answerable to any federal agency since this is a Federation.  

The case has generated considerable interest from both lawyers and non-lawyers alike with everyone trying not to pre-empt the Supreme Court. But the point has been well made that this is not the first time that the legality of the EFCC, and the NFIU et al. has been raised and that there are precedents.  Analysts have cited the cases of Olafisoye v. FRN (2004) where the court upheld the powers of the anti-corruption agencies to do their work, and AG Ondo State v. AG Federation (2002) where the court ruled that the National Assembly has the powers to legislate on corruption related matters with regard to Section 15(5) of the 1999 Constitution, and Section 4(2). In Olafisoye’s case, the Supreme Court ruled that the National Assembly has the exclusive powers to legislate over corruption matters which would seem to nullify the claim by the states that they would rather establish their own anti-graft agencies. The objection to the NFIU is rooted in the desperate attempts by the states to control local government funds and defeat the goals of financial autonomy for local councils. In 2019, the state governments had a running battle with the NFIU which had given a directive that no state government must touch funds meant for the local councils. The NFIU gave specific guidelines that the states should transfer funds meant for the councils accordingly and that withdrawal from the same account by the local councils must not exceed N500, 000 per day. Withdrawals must also be duly reported to the NFIU. The Governors insisted that the states-local councils joint account is a creation of the constitution and it was wrong to describe the local government system as a third tier of government. The Nigerian Governors Forum sued the FG and NFIU. In 2022, Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court, Abuja ruled in favour of the defendants. Again in 2024, the Supreme Court further affirmed the financial autonomy of the country’s 774 local governments. It is therefore not surprising that the states and the Governors who have turned the local councils into mere appendages are now also approaching the Supreme Court. In both major issues, the plaintiffs seem to have found a loophole in the enabling acts of the anti-graft agencies which they hope to put through the furnace of judicial test. 

Two legal luminaries, both Senior Advocates of Nigeria – Dr. Olisa Agbakoba and Mr. Femi Falana have offered their perspectives on the subject. Agbakoba, in separate letters titled “Re: Urgent Legislative Attention on Constitutional Reforms Relating to Law Enforcement Agencies and Anti-Corruption Efforts” written to the Senate and the House of Representatives, without holding brief for the state governments, submitted that the EFCC was “unconstitutionally established” and hence, “an unlawful organization”. He said the National Assembly acted ultra vires, simply exceeded its authority under Section 4 of the Constitution, and that is why the states are challenging the validity of the EFCC. Agbakoba SAN made specific demands: (a) that the enabling framework setting up the EFCC has to be reviewed because the EFCC appears to be working at cross-purposes with the Nigeria Police Force; (b) that the National Assembly should organize a public hearing to consider constitutional issues to discuss needed reforms in line with section 13 of the Constitution; (c) that the National Assembly should reform the EFCC by clearly defining its mandate to prevent future abuses.   When he appeared on Arise News flagship programme, The Morning Show, Agbakoba went a step further, by reminding everyone that the EFCC legislation was passed in two days in 2003- the fastest legislation ever passed in Nigeria (!), and many mistakes were made. He wants the mistakes in the EFCC Act reviewed. But the high point of the interview was when Dr. Agbakoba, saying the EFCC has not been effective, railed: “These guys are terrorists; in my view they terrorize us; they use their might in their red coats to terrorize us. Once you say EFCC, you are scared. That is not what a law enforcement agency should be. They ought to be better.”

Femi Falana SAN, disagrees with some of the points raised by his brother Silk. He has also written his own separate letters to the Senate and the House of Representatives to counter Agbakoba’s submissions. He said that contrary to Agbakoba’s claim, the Supreme Court has consistently supported the ICPC and the EFCC (Nyame vs. FRN; AG Ondo vs. AG Federation); and that no illegality can be established with regard to claims about violations of the principles of federalism (Olafisoye vs FRN). Falana further contends that it is the duty of the state to “abolish all corrupt practices and abuse of power” and that the EFCC is a common agency with constitutional authority. He deplores the attempt by the state governments to frustrate the prosecution of public officers. Falana’s main conclusion is that the National Assembly should entrench the legality of the EFCC and ICPC in the Constitution as part of the ongoing Constitution amendment process – a point to which Agbakoba says he concurs. 

Having thus raised the facts of the case, the issues involved, rules as established in precedents, and expert opinions of senior counsel, it remains for us to await the ruling of the Supreme Court exercising its original and inherent jurisdictions in what is clearly a matter of public policy. Despite the precedents that have been quoted, it is up to the Justices of the apex court to either affirm or reverse themselves. Nonetheless, certain conclusions can be reached. 

It must be remembered that in 2003, Nigeria was heavily in debt to the tune of about US$35. 9 billion. The Obasanjo administration embarked on the historic and important mission of getting debt relief for the country. The country was spending more on interest payments for its debt, with debt to GDP ratio at about 58%. Nigeria needed help and President Obasanjo was committed to getting help to rescue the country. In October 2000, the Obasanjo administration established the Debt Management Office (DMO). The country’s efforts to secure debt relief soon met a brickwall, when the Paris-based Financial Action Task Force (FATF) grey-listed Nigeria along with 22 other countries, that is countries that could not combat financial crimes like corruption and money laundering as well as terrorism financing. To make progress the Nigerian government had to set up anti-corruption agencies - the EFCC and the ICPC. Both bodies were products of expediency, but the outcomes were pleasant. In October 2005, Nigeria and the Paris Club reached a final agreement of $18 billon debt relief and reduction of Nigeria’s debt stock by $30 billion. About 18 years later, it is most unfortunate that Nigeria’s external debt has since crossed the $41 billion mark! The country is back in the debt trap. In the intervening years, the EFCC traced about N776 billion fraud cases, stolen only by public officials. In 2024 alone, this year, the EFCC has secured 3, 175 convictions and recovered N156 billion. 

So, is this a case of corruption fighting back? Dele Oyewale, EFCC spokesperson claims that there is a push-back against the EFCC because it has been so effective. We must note the concern that has been expressed however that the EFCC has been too histrionic in its efforts and selective in its operations creating the impression that it can be used as a tool of political witch-hunt by whoever is in power at the centre. Some past Governors are shielded from prosecution while some others are specially targeted. What the EFCC requires is to be seen to be fair to all parties concerned and be above board. Fairness is at the heart of any justice administration process. This is what Agbakoba SAN alludes to when he dismisses the EFCC as a terror organization. The National Assembly has been accused of not following due process in establishing the EFCC, but even if that were established, would that render all acts by the EFCC and other anti-graft agencies a nullity? Under the doctrine of covering the field, the validity of the exercise of the National Assembly’s powers under Section 4 of the 1999 Constitution can be upheld. The state has a responsibility to check corruption, and over the years, we have seen the ingenuity of Nigerians in both public and private places to take what is not theirs. The closer many Nigerians get to the proverbial national cake, the more covetous they become. Agbakoba says “once you say EFCC, you are scared”. Well, the situation is so bad, somebody needs to scare Nigerians. Even with the best efforts of the various anti-graft agencies, Nigeria has consistently ranked poorly on the Global Transparency Index. The country grapples with a worsening reputational damage. 

We should therefore not throw the baby away with the bath water. Nigeria needs the anti-graft agencies now more than the country did in 2003. Indeed, in February 2023, the FATF added Nigeria again to the list of countries that have been grey-listed. The country is required to implement an action plan comprising 19 items before May 2025 to avoid the certain prospect of moving from “the Grey List” to the “Black List.”  This certainly is not the best of times for Nigeria to start talking about nullifying its anti-graft agencies. Perhaps, the better option lies in the middle ground between Agbakoba and Falana. 

Agbakoba is right when he says the EFCC is in urgent need of reform. The agency must be seen to be acting always within the ambits of the law. In recent times, EFCC officials showed too much overzealousness, exposing the institution to public ridicule and the derision of the persons they had declared wanted. For example, the former Kogi Governor Yahaya Bello who had been declared wanted by the EFCC showed up at the EFCC headquarters only to be told by the people who had declared him wanted locally and internationally to go back home. Then, in the evening of the same day, they went hunting for him, shooting in the air, and terrorizing the public. Just in case there are too many people in the EFCC who are addicts of Hollywood and Nollywood films, they should be re-directed to where they can make the best use of their talents. Such persons tend to turn EFCC operations into movie-like engagements. Nollywood is a fast-growing industry that can accommodate more talents. The EFCC should stay firmly on the path of professionalism. 

Both Falana and Agbakoba agree that there is a need to “constitutionalize” the EFCC. This is important. Whatever grey areas may exist in the enabling acts of the anti-graft agencies can be corrected through amendments to constitutional provisions and the acts. The EFCC, ICPC, NFIU should see the latest development not as evidence that they are working so that is why they are being resisted. This should be an opportunity for soul-searching and reflection, and a re-dedication to core organizational goals and objectives.  Nigerians are calling for the abolition of the agencies because of shortcomings that they have observed. EFCC officials are known, for example, for engaging in all kinds of tactics. At a point, the EFCC Chairman himself had to complain that there are corrupt elements in the EFCC. Going forward, EFCC officials must be made to declare their assets. People fighting corruption must not be seen to be living above their means. Many Nigerians wonder why anti-corruption agents become so rich.  This was how the police lost the trust of the public. EFCC officials must focus on their core task of fighting financial and economic crimes. They should not allow themselves to be used as debt recovery agents looking for commissions. They must stop media trial. They must stop supporting politicians as they were accused of doing in the last general elections. There is a Manual on operational guidelines for the EFCC prepared by the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice. They must abide by those guidelines, and resist the temptation to become an organization where anything goes. The EFCC needs its own ombudsman to make it more professional, ethical and law-abiding.   

•Customs agents hint at confusion among implementation agencies
•Inflation, exchange rate defeat policy objectives – Analysts
•Policy not optimal – Afrinvest

Hopes of many low-income Nigerians for lower food prices may be dashed as the zero import duty policy on essential food staples appears to have hit fresh hitches.

Stakeholders cite citing lack of coordination, unclear directives, and underlying agronomic and infrastructural challenges as major obstacles.

This comes against the backdrop of renewed inflationary pressure on the purchasing power of vulnerable citizens, the main reason for the measure with the objective of moderating the prices of essential food items.

Nigeria’s inflation has consistently maintained an upswing since the assumption of office by President Bola Tinubu in May 2023 with a May 2024 figure at 33.95%, up massively from the 22.4% he inherited in May 2023.
Amidst the inflationary pressures President Tinubu, marking his one year in office, announced a 150-day duty-free import window for food commodities to ensure a reduction in food inflation in Nigeria.

However, Nigeria’s inflation rate which peaked at 34.19% in June 2024 before declining for two
consecutive months of July at 33.4% and 32.15% in August, reversed the progress in September, rising to 32.7%, according to data released last week by the National Bureau of Statistics. This indicates that the hardship is far from moderate.

Amidst this development, Financial Vanguard findings show that the softening measures through the zero-duty food imports are not going to happen any time soon as the government agencies involved have been tied down by role conflicts in the process of the implementation.

The initial setback, Vanguard learnt, was the need for the Ministry of Finance to issue relevant directives for commencement, a situation which led to an initial two-month delay.

Also, the Nigeria Customs Service (NCS) said that the federal government would forgo N188.4 billion in revenue over the five-month window for the duty waiver and this may have unsettled both the Finance Ministry and the Federal Inland Revenue Service.

On August 15, 2024, Customs announced that the program was ready to commence following a letter of implementation from the Finance Ministry to this effect dated August 08, 2024.

But two and half months after the letter, Vanguard learnt that the programme had been further bogged down by bureaucracy and major disagreements amongst the implementing agencies.

Vanguard further learnt that the government agencies are now evasive in responding to inquiries from stakeholders due to obvious ambiguity surrounding the implementation.

Customs agents hint at confusion

Giving further insight into the controversies, a key stakeholder in the policy implementation value chain, Lucky Amiwero, who is the President of the National Council of Managing Directors of Licensed Customs Agents (NCMDLCA), expressed frustration over the unclear status of the zero import duty implementation.

Amiwero, speaking to Vanguard cited lack of coordination among the government agencies as the primary cause of the logjam.

He stated: “After our last petition seeking clarification on the implementation date, the government hasn’t responded. We only received feedback from the Federal Inland Revenue Service; there has been no clarification from any other government agency. We cannot waste money writing to a government that came up with a policy they cannot implement.”

Expressing frustration with the situation Amiwero said, “Look at the economy now, the economy is in comatose. So we are doing all these things to intervene to see how the government can reduce costs, but look at the policy they came up with, we cannot find the policy. We don’t know what is going on’’.

According to him, ‘‘the implications of this delay in implementation are severe, with many companies facing potential closure due to escalating energy costs, exchange rates, and oil prices. There’s no capital flow in the country, and the import system is dwindling because of the government’s inability to intervene and reduce costs.”

Policy not optimal

Meanwhile, Afrinvest Research, an arm of Afrinvest West Africa, a Lagos-based investment house, has questioned the policy’s effectiveness, suggesting that the protectionist approach may not yield optimal results due to Nigeria’s agronomic and infrastructural challenges.

The analysts at the investment house, in a report titled, ‘Suspension of Import Duties on Food Staples, Silver Bullet to Inflation Crises?’ stated: “The 150-day suspension period may need to be extended for more impactful results.

“However, adopting this stance without addressing gaps in the domestic agriculture value chain might deliver a weak outcome.

“Although the exact commencement date of the tax-free importation window is yet to be announced, the near-term objective policy is to paper cover cracks in domestic supply gaps induced by persistent conflict along the food belt, adverse weather conditions, as well as poor quality and high cost of agriculture inputs’’.

Inflation, exchange rates defeat policy objectives

Also pointing to the implications of the delay in the implementation of the zero-duty program on prices of the food items, the analysts at Afrinvest noted that both inflation and exchange rate have already overtaken the expected price moderation on those commodities targeted by the measure.

‘‘We note that the renewed pressure on the headline inflation rate was mainly fueled by the food inflation sub-basket.

‘‘Precisely, the food inflation rate rose by 25 bases points year-on-year and 27 bps month-on-month to 37.8% and 2.6% sequentially, reflecting the negative pass-through effect of energy price surge and transportation cost MoM, and the devastating impact of flood in key agrarian communities during the period.

‘‘A similar trend was observed on imported food inflation surging by 3.1 percentage points to 39.5%.’’
In addition, the analysts noted that the exchange rate has also moved against the policy objects while the delay lasted, stating that Naira has depreciated by more than 5.5% in the official market and nearly 10 per cent in the parallel market since the policy was announced, a development which has ultimately increased the prices of those commodities.

A draft legislative bill seeking to protect Nigeria’s raw materials processing and local production has passed the the first reading at the Senate.

A statement by Director, Corporate Affairs of Raw Materials Research and Development Council (RMRDC), Mr. Chuks Ngaha, noted that the bill if passed into law will chart the pathway to industrial growth and development in Nigeria, the statement said.

The draft legislative bill, sponsored by Senator Peter Nwebonyi (Ebonyi North), seeks to fortify Nigeria’s local manufacturing sector, reduce dependency on imports and ensure sustainable economic development through the promotion of local processing and value addition to the nation’s raw materials resources.

It also seeks to promote domestic processing while ensuring that no raw materials are exported from Nigeria without undergoing a minimum of 30% processing, thereby fostering value addition within the country.

On protection of local industries, the legislative bill seeks to prohibit the importation of raw materials that are available for local production, safeguard local manufacturers from unfair competition and encourage the growth of the domestic industry.

“The objective is to ensure that no raw materials are exported from Nigeria without undergoing a minimum of 30% processing, and prohibit the importation of raw materials that are available for local production,” the statement added.

The bill emphasised that no raw materials shall be exported from Nigeria without certification by the Council confirming that the materials have undergone the required processing.

On import prohibition, the bill indicates that no raw materials that can be processed or produced locally shall be imported into Nigeria, and that the Federal Ministry of Trade and Investment in consultation with RMRDC shall compile and maintain a list of raw materials that are locally available for local production and the exercise shall be subject to periodic review.