Attorney-general Of Ondo State V. Attorney-general Of The Federation & Ors (2002)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

L. UWAIS, C.J.N.

By order 3 rule 2 (2) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1985 civil proceedings in the original jurisdiction of this court may be commenced by inter alia filing originating summons. Order 3 rule 6 (1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1985 as amended, also permits any party claiming any legal or equitable right, the determination of which depends on the construction of the constitution or any other enactment, to begin proceedings by causing an originating summons to issue.

In exercise of the provisions of the aforementioned rules on behalf of the government of Ondo State, the plaintiff brought this action against the Attorney-General of the Federation and the Attorneys-General of the 35 states comprising the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as representatives of the federal and their states government respectively. The plaintiff applies for the determination of the following questions:

“1. A determination of the question whether or not the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000, is valid and as a law enacted by the National Assembly and in force in every state of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (including Ondo State).

2. A determination of the question whether or not the Attorney-General of the Federation (1st defendant) or any person authorised by him can lawfully initiate legal proceedings in any court of law in Ondo State in respect of any of the criminal offences created by any of the provisions of the said Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000.
3. A declaration that the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000, is not in force as law in Ondo State.
4. A declaration that it is not lawful for the Attorney-General of the Federation (1st defendant) or any person authorised by him to initiate legal proceedings in any court of law in Ondo State in respect of the criminal offences purported to be created by the provisions of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000.
5. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Federal Government, its functionaries or agencies whomsoever (including the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission) or howsoever from executing or applying or enforcing the provisions of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000 in Ondo State whether by interfering with the activities of any person in Ondo State (including any public officer or functionary or officer or servant of the government of Ondo State) in exercise of powers purported to be conferred by or under the provisions of the said act or otherwise howsoever.
6. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Attorney-General of the Federation including his officers, servants and agents whomsoever or howsoever from exercising any of the powers vested in him by the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 or by any other law in respect of any of the criminal offences created by any of the provisions contained in the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000”

On 22nd January, 2002 the parties were directed by the court to file briefs of argument within a given time. The plaintiff complied on 12th February, 2002. The 1st defendant as well as the 2nd, 4th,7th, 8th, 11th, 12th, 14th, 17th, 19th 23rd, 25th, 27th, 28th, 30th, 31st and 32nd defendants also filed their briefs on different dates in compliance with the direction. The other defendants failed to comply and therefore forfeited the right to address us.

The court had also invited Professor B. O. Nwabueze, SAN, Chief Afe Babalola, SAN and Olisa Agbakoba, SAN as amici curiae and they each filed briefs of argument.

At the hearing of the case, which took place on the 12th and 13th March, 2002 following parties were not represented – 5th, 6th, 9th, 13th, 15th, 16th, 18th, 20th, 22nd, 24th, 26th, 29th, 33rd and 35th defendants.

Chief Williams, learned senior advocate for the plaintiff, formulated the following issues in the plaintiff’s brief of argument for us to determine:

“(i) Whether the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000, is a law with respect to a matter or matters upon which the National Assembly is empowered to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Nigeria under the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

(ii) Further and in the alternative to question (i), whether the National Assembly has power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria with respect to the criminal offences contained in the Corrupt Practices And Other Related Offences Act, 2000.

(iii) Whether the Attorney-General of the Federation or any person authorised by the Independent Corrupt Practices And Other Related Offences Commission can lawfully initiate or authorise the initiation of criminal proceedings in any court of law in Ondo State in respect of any of the criminal offences created by any of the provisions of the said Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000.

(iv) Whether all the powers conferred on the Independent Corrupt Practices And Other Related Offences Commission or on other functionaries or agencies of the Federal Government by the Corrupt Practices And Other Related Offences Act, 2000 are exercisable in Ondo State in relation to the activities of any person in that state (including any public officer or functionary or officer or servant of the government of Ondo State).”

The following defendants have adopted in their briefs of argument the plaintiff’s case in its entirety – 2nd, 4th, 12th, 17th, 25th, 28th, 30th and 32nd, in stating the facts relevant to this suit. Chief Williams said that the claims of the plaintiff are based upon the fact that the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2000, No.4 of 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) contains provisions concerning several matters, including punishable offences, with respect to which it is the House of Assembly of Ondo State that is vested with the powers to make laws and not the National Assembly. He referred to the explanatory memorandum, at the end of the act, which reads as follows:-

“The act seeks to prohibit and prescribe punishment for Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences. It establishes an Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission vesting it with the responsibility for investigation and prosecution of offenders thereof. Provision has also been made for the protection of anybody who gives information to the commission in respect of an offence committed or likely to be committed by any other person.”