A Federal High Court in Gusau, Zamfara State, ruled that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission does not have the power to ask current and former officials of the Zamfara State Government (through letters, phone calls, or any other means of communication) to explain how the state’s money is spent.
The Court ruled that the 1st Defendant (EFCC) or any other authority, person, group, or organization other than the Auditor General of Zamfara State does not have the power to audit the public accounts of Zamfara State.
Justice Aminu Bappa Aliyu said this on Wednesday when he ruled on a case brought against the EFCC and the Attorney General of the Federation by the Government of Zamfara State and the Attorney General of Zamfara State.
The court also threw out the EFCC’s letter of call to former and current officials of the Zamfara State Government, which was dated September 28, 2021, or any other date. The court said that the letter “exceeded the powers of the first defendant” and was therefore invalid and had no effect.
After hearing from the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Abdulfathu Shehu, and the defendants’ lawyers, Adebisi Adeniyi and P. A. Attah, the court made these and other orders in the Writ of Summons suit, which was filed on November 16, 2021, and given the number FHC/GS/CS/30/2021.
After looking at all of the parties’ paperwork, Justice Aliyu granted all of the plaintiffs’ requests. He also made it clear that only the Zamfara State House of Assembly and the Auditor General of the state have the constitutional power to ask questions or invite public officials to explain how the state’s money is being spent. Neither the EFCC nor the AGF have this power.
The Zamfara State Government also asked the court to stop the EFCC from calling, arresting, or detaining any government officials in the state over the misuse of public funds because that would go against what the anti-corruption group is allowed to do.
“A declaration is made that, having regard to Sections 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 128 and 129 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, the 1st Defendant (EFCC) does not have the power to invite (by letters, phone calls, or any other means of communication) serving and former officials of the Plaintiff to explain how funds meant for securitization were used,” said the presiding judge
“It is declared that, based on a calm and proper reading of Section 125 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, the power to receive financial statements and annual accounts of Zamfara State from the Accountant General of Zamfara State does not belong to the 1st Defendant or any other authority, person, body, or organization other than the Auditor General for Zamfara State.
“A declaration is made that, based on a correct reading of Section 125 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, the power to audit the public accounts of Zamfara State does not lie with the 1st Defendant or any other authority, person, body, or organization other than the Auditor General of Zamfara State.
The 1st and 2nd Defendants (EFCC and AGF) as well as any other authority, person, body, or organization cannot direct or control the Auditor General or any person acting on his behalf, according to a calm and proper reading of Section 125 of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended.
“An Order of Injunction is made stopping the 1st Defendant, its agent, servant, detectives, employees, staff, operatives, and privies from inviting, or further inviting, arresting, or detaining past or present officials of the 1st Plaintiff (Zamfara State Government) about how funds meant for security votes, estacodes, and travel allowances were spent by the 1st Plaintiff except through the House of Assembly of Zamfara State and in strict
“An Order of Injunction is made to stop the 1st Defendant, its agents, employees, servants, operatives, detectives, privies, investigating officer(s), and any other person by whatever name called, from inviting, or further inviting, intimidating, harassing, and threatening to arrest or detain, or from arresting or detaining any past or present official of the 1st Plaintiff based on the same or similar facts as stated herein.
“An Order is made that the 1st Defendant’s letter of invitation to the past and current officials of the Plaintiff, dated September 28, 2021, or any other date, is void and has no effect because it goes beyond the 1st Defendant’s authority.”
