[ad_1]
Foremost human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana, on Thursday famous that opposite to the opinions of one other SAN, Olisa Agbakoba, anti-graft companies such because the Financial and Monetary Crimes Fee and the Unbiased Corrupt Practices Fee and different associated offences had been competent to analyze the account of state governments.
The Senior Advocate made this identified in a chunk made accessible to our correspondent in Abuja.
“My revered colleague and comrade within the human rights neighborhood, Olisa Agbakoba SAN has questioned the authorized competence of the anti-graft companies to analyze the funds of state governments. He feels so satisfied about his place that he has introduced his intention to method the federal excessive court docket to safe a perpetual injunction restraining the EFCC from probing the accounts of state governments.
“The controversy is totally unnecessary in view of the truth that the appellate courts have held that the anti-graft companies are competent to arrest, examine and prosecute public officers and personal people concerned within the felony diversion of public fund belonging to state governments. Among the circumstances embody the next: Kalu v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2014) 1 NWLR (PT 1389) 479.
“The locus standi of the EFCC to prosecute the Appellants was questioned by the Appellants who raised a number of objections to the fees on the grounds that the funds allegedly stolen belonged to the Abia State authorities.
“The Appellants contended that they need to not have been charged within the title of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
The Court docket of Enchantment entertained no problem in dismissing the objections. Within the main judgment of the Court docket Eko JCA (as he then was) mentioned, “The Appellants have incorrectly in my opinion, argued that the cash laundering offences alleged in opposition to them are offences in opposition to Abia State Authorities that owns the funds allegedly “stolen and laundered within the account of Slok Nigeria Restricted.
“This argument is rooted in one other fallacious floor that the funds allegedly stolen and paid into the account of Slok Nigeria Restricted had been from the Safety Vote of Abia State that had been managed by the 2nd Respondent, because the Governor of Abia State, and that the mentioned Safety Votes are ’unaccountable and unretiredable’.
“The argument doesn’t say, and it can’t be additional stretched to imply, that as a result of the funds from Safety Votes are ‘unaccountable and unretireable’ they’re stealable or and might be pilfered with impunity.”
“Kalu V Federal Republic Of Nigeria & Ors [2016] NGSC 34 Utterly dissatisfied with the choice of the Court docket of Enchantment the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court docket. In dismissing the enchantment their lordships mentioned:
“The Appellant’s argument that he neither had shares in nor was he the alter ego of Slok Ltd and the illegality of withdrawal of some big sums of cash from the Account of Abia State Authorities of which he was the Govt Governor from 1999 to 2007; all these are issues for his defence at trial.
“Sections 6 (m) and 46 of the Financial and Monetary Crimes Fee (Institution) Act vest in EFCC the perform and responsibility of investigating and prosecuting individuals fairly suspected to have dedicated financial and monetary crimes. For an individual to hurry to court docket to position a clog or defend in opposition to felony investigation and prosecution is a transparent interference with the powers given by regulation and the structure to EFCC within the conduct of felony investigation and prosecution.”
“Dariye v Federal Republic of Nigeria (2015) 10 NWLR (PT.1467) 325.
The Appellant challenged the facility of the EFCC to prosecute the matter on the bottom that the subject material was not the property of the Plateau State Authorities. In dismissing the objection the apex court docket held that, “…as rightly identified by the discovered senior counsel for the Respondent, the offences are charged underneath the provisions of the Penal Code which is a Federal laws. It’s a Federal indictment and the Legal professional-Basic of the Federation by himself or by an agent might prosecute for the offences alleged. The proprietor of the subject material of the fees is immaterial. What’s materials is {that a} Federal enactment has been violated. “
“Nyame v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2010) 7 NWLR (PT.1093) 344 at 429 .
In dismissing the objection that the prosecutor isn’t the proprietor of the cash stolen the Supreme Court docket had this to say:“It isn’t a defence identified to regulation that an accused particular person can’t be prosecuted by the authority with prosecutorial powers on the bottom that the prosecutor isn’t the proprietor of the stolen objects.
“Legal offence is an offence in opposition to the state. A prosecutor needn’t have an curiosity in the subject material of the grievance earlier than he can prosecute an accused particular person. He’s defending the state and its residents and each prosecutor or authority or company vested with the powers to prosecute must be inspired to hold out their duties, offered that the due course of is maintained and adopted.”
“Legal professional-Basic of Ondo State v. Legal professional-Basic of the Federation (2002) 27 WRN 1 at 186:
“The plaintiff challenged the constitutional validity of the ICPC Act 2000 and contended that it was not relevant to Ondo State. In upholding the validity of the Ac the apex court docket held inter alia:
“It has been identified that the provisions of the Act impinge on the cardinal precept of federalism, particularly, the requirement of equality and autonomy of the State Authorities and non-inter-reference with the capabilities of State Authorities.
“That is true, however as seen above, each the Federal and State Authorities share the facility to legislate to be able to abolish corruption and abuse of workplace. If it is a breach of the precept of Federalism, then, I’m afraid, it’s the Structure that makes the provisions which have facilitated the breach of the precept.
“So far as the aberration is supported by the availability of the Structure, I believe it can not rightly be argued that an illegality has occurred by the failure of the Structure to stick to the cardinal rules that are at finest beliefs to observe or steerage for a really perfect state of affairs.
“Shema & 3 Ors v Federal Republic of Nigeria (2018) 1 SC (PT 1) 1.
The difficulty in dispute was the competence of EFCC to prosecute a former governor of a state and different officers with out the fiat of the State Legal professional-Basic. It was the view of the Supreme Court docket that, “The regulation evinces a transparent intention that, with or with out categorical delegation from the Legal professional Basic of Katsina State, the EFCC may validly want the current expenses and prosecute the appellants within the title of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as a typical Company of each the Legal professional Basic of the Federation and Legal professional Basic of Katsina State.
“We agree with the respondent {that a} neighborhood studying of provisions of Sections 15 (5) and 211 (1) (b) of the 1999 Structure of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended); Part 6 (m), 7 (f), 13 (2) (a) and (d) and 46 of the EFCC (Institution) Act, 2004 and Part 185 (a) of the Legal Process Code (CPC), Cap 37, Regulation of Katsina State, 1991 provides the EFCC energy to do what it sought to do by trying to prosecute the appellants.
“In view of the present state of the regulation it’s indubitably clear the EFCC and ICPC are competent to probe the accounts of state governments and prosecute former or serving state authorities officers concerned in corrupt practices, cash laundering or felony diversion of public fund.
“Despite the fact that state governors can’t be arrested and prosecuted since part 305 of the Structure has conferred immunity on them throughout their time period of workplace the anti-graft companies will not be precluded type investigating allegations of financial and monetary crimes fee together with corruption leveled in opposition to them.”
[ad_2]
Source link