A Federal High Court sitting in Ado Ekiti has ruled that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) lacks powers to investigate finances of a state as appropriated by state’s House of Assembly, without a report of an indictment from the assembly.
Justice Taiwo Taiwo, in a judgement delivered on Tuesday, held that only the state’s House of Assembly and the Auditor-General of a state were legally empowered to monitor and investigate the finances of a state by way of oversight.
In a suit with number FHC/AD/CS/32/2016 between Attorney General, Ekiti State and EFCC and 17 others, the court held that the EFCC could not usurp the oversight functions constitutionally vested in state House of Assembly under Sections 128 and 129 of the 1999 Constitution to initiate a probe or criminal proceedings against a state official.
Justice Taiwo said only a state’s legislature was vested with the duty of oversight and investigation over state’s finances; appropriation and implementation after receiving a formal report from the Auditor General or the Accountant General as the case may arise.
Justice Taiwo ruled that under a federation, the Federal Government cannot serve as an overseer or auditor-general regarding the finances of a state, saying “the power for control of the fund, financial outflow, appropriation are vested in the House of Assembly. It is the Auditor General of the state that has the power to conduct check on all government corporations and to submit his report to the assembly.”
He added: “Nobody including the court can read other meaning into the clear provision of the constitution. The assembly has the responsibilities on the management of funds by the executives. They have the responsibility to ensure fund management, cut wastages, reject corruption.
“The first defendant (EFCC) is bound to operate within the constitution and cannot operate like the lord of the manor. It is statutory duty is not a licence to contravene the Constitution.
“I can’t by any stretch of imagination see how the statutory functions of the (EFCC) can extend to a state in a federation under any guise to the extent that the eight to 18 defendants (banks) will be directed to submit bank details.
“Yes, the first defendant can investigate any person or corporate organisation, what it can’t do is to usurp the powers of the assembly.
“The Federal Government cannot impose its statutory duties on a state in flagrant disobedient of the constitution. The prosecution should not ride roughshod over the constitution. It is the duty of judges to ensure they don’t listen to the sentiment of the public. I resolve all issues in favour of the plaintiff. I grant all reliefs sought by the plaintiff in view of the fact they are live issues.”
The Attorney General, Ekiti State had joined the Inspector-General of Police, Speaker, House of Assembly, Ekiti State; Speaker, Ekiti State House of Assembly; Auditor-General, Ekiti State, Accountant-General, Ekiti State and others.
The plaintiff had sought eight reliefs, among which was the declaration that the defendants are not permitted to share with EFCC and the IGP or any person or abdicate its powers of control over the public funds of Ekiti State as vested by the 1999 constitution as amended.
The Attorney General filed the suit after the EFCC wrote letters in which it invited some of the government officials to demand financial details of some transactions by the state.
The EFCC had also written letters to some bankers of the state government and demanded had to see the state’s financial books.
Reacting to the judgment, Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN) noted that the suit was the 21st time in which he had defeated the EFCC in court and charged the commission to always act within the dictates of the law, saying “we have to continue to use the court as a tool of social engineering.”
Ozekhome also advised the Federal Government “to ensure that it obeys rule of law and court orders as it has demonstrated in several cases.”
Speaking on the judgement, Mr. Peter Nwatu from Ahmed Raji Chambers, who led a team of lawyers for the plaintiffs, noted that “the judgement is ex-cathedra reaffirmation of the supremacy of the constitution.”
and then