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.