Legalpedia Citation: (2021-10) Legalpedia 07685 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Holden At Abuja

Mon Dec 20, 2021

Suit Number: SC.161/2020

CORAM

Olukayode Ariwoola Justice, Supreme Court

John Inyang Okoro Justice, Supreme Court

Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju Justice, Supreme Court

Abdu Aboki Justice, Supreme Court

Tijjani Abubakar Justice, Supreme Court

PARTIES

1. JOSEPH NWOBIKE, SAN

APPELLANTS

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, INTERPRETATION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant in this appeal was charged before the High Court of Lagos State for the offences of offering gratification to a public officer contrary to Section 64(1) of the Criminal Law of Lagos State No. 11 of 2011, attempting to pervert the course of justice contrary to Section 97(3) of the Criminal Law of Lagos State, and making false information to an officer of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) contrary to Section 39(2) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act, 2004. When the charge was read to the Appellant, he pleaded “not guilty” to all the counts.

The trial Court delivered its judgment and found the Appellant not guilty of the offences of offering gratification to a public official and making false information to an officer of the EFCC. He was consequently discharged and acquitted of those Counts. He was however found guilty and convicted for attempting to pervert the course of justice, and consequently sentenced to thirty (30) days imprisonment on each count, terms of imprisonment to run concurrently.

The Appellant became nettled by the decision of the trial Court and appealed Same before the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal allowed Appellant’s appeal in part but still affirmed his conviction for attempting to pervert the course of justice.

Still peeved by the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Appellant further appealed to this Court.

HELD

Appeal allowed

ISSUES

1. Whether, having regard to the provisions of Sections 14 18 of the EFCC (Establishment) Act, 2004 and the decision in Emmanuel Ahmed vs. Federal Republic of Nigeria [2009] 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 536 at 552, the EFCC had any authority to investigate and prosecute the Appellant for the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice charged in Counts 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16 and 17 of the Amended Information and if not whether the trial Court and Court below had jurisdiction to try the Appellant or to affirm decision of the trial Court?
2. Whether the Court below was right in affirming the conviction and sentence of the Appellant for the offence of attempt to pervert the course of justice under Section 97(6) of the Criminal Law, having regard to the fact, as found by the learned trial Judge (a finding against which the prosecution did not appeal) that Section 97(3) of the Criminal Law does not define the offence charged and was therefore inconsistent with Section 36(12) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (the “Constitution”) and therefore null and void?
3. Whether the Court below erred in law when it affirmed the conviction and sentence of the Appellant for the offence of attempt to pervert the course of justice under Section 97(3) of the Criminal Law, when the conduct of the Appellant did not constitute an offence define the law under which he was charged?
4. Whether their Lordships of the Court below erred in law when they applied the reasonable man’s test to their interpretation or construction of Sections 97(3) of the Criminal Law, and 36(12) of the Constitution, when as found by the learned trial Judge, Section 97(6) of the Criminal Law, did not disclose any offence known to law?
5. Whether their Lordships of the Court below were right when they held that Section 97(3) of the Criminal Law was not inconsistent with Section 36(6)(a) of the Constitution, in view of the apparent breach of the provisions of Section 36(2) of the Constitution?
6. Whether their Lordships of the Court below erred in law when they relied on the decision in Okpa v. State [2017] 15 NWLR (Pt. 1587) 1 to affirm the conviction and sentence of the Appellant having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case and the decision of this Honorable Court in Adegoke Motors vs. Adesanya [1989] 5 SC 113 and Oyeneyin vs. Akinkugbe [2010] 4 NWLR (Pt. 1184) 265 at 286, amongst others?
7. Whether in view of the findings of the Courts below regarding the knowledge of the Appellant at the times the text messages were sent (i.e. that the Appellant knew that Mr. Jide was not responsible for theassignment of cases and had no powers to assign cases), the decision of the Court below that the Appellant intended, by sending the text messages to Mr. Jide, to tempt him to assign the Appellant’s cases to preferred judges is perverse?
8. Whether the issue formulated by the Court below and on the basis of which it proceeded to affirm the conviction and sentence of the Appellant for the offences discharged in Counts 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16 and 17 of the Amended Information dated the 27th day of December, 2017, is prejudicial and inconsistent with the principles established by this Court to guarantee fair trial in the cases of Mbanefo vs. Molokwu [2014] 6 NWLR (Pt. 1403) 377 (SC) and Mogaji vs. Odofin (1978) 4 SC 91 as well as Ewulu vs. Nwankpu [1991] 8 NWLR (Pt. 210) 487 at 507 (CA) and Leko vs. Soda [1995] 2 NWLR (Pt. 378) 432 at 444 (CA)?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

EFCC – THE OFFENCES EFCC CAN INVESTIGATE, ENFORCE, AND PROSECUTE

Indeed, the effect of the combined provisions of Sections 6(b); 7(1)(a) & (2)(f) and 13(2) of the EFCC (Establishment) Act, leaves no doubt that the EFCC has the power to investigate, enforce and prosecute offenders for any offence, whether under the Act or any other statute, in so far as the offence relates to commission of economic and financial crimes. See EMMANUEL AHMED V. FRN (supra); NYAME V. FRN (supra). – Per Tijjani Abubakar, JSC

ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES – DEFINITION OF ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES

It is clear to me that the argument canvassed by the learned Counsel for the Respondent wholly and exclusively revolves around Section 46 of the EFCC (Establishment) Act, which defines economic and financial crimes thus:

“Economic and financial crimes means the non-violent criminal and illicit activity committed with the objective of earning wealth either individually or in a group or organized manner thereby violating existing legislation governing economic activities of government and its administration and includes any form of fraud, narcotic drug trafficking, money laundering, embezzlement, bribery, looting and any form of corrupt malpractices, illegal arms deal, smuggling, human trafficking and child labour, foreign exchange malpractice including counterfeiting of currency, theft of intellectual property and piracy, open market abuse, dumping of toxic wastes and prohibited goods, etc.” – Per Tijjani Abubakar, JSC

EJUSDEM GENERIS RULE – THE CONDUCT OF COURTS IN APPLYING THE EJUSDEM GENERIS RULE

I must not fail to mention that the application of the ejusdem generis rule is not a matter of course and this Court has admonished that this rule must not be pushed too far but be applied with caution in the absence of other indications disclosing the explicit intention of the legislature. See: SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF NIGERIA V. FEDERAL BOARD OF INLAND REVENUE [1996] 8 NWLR (Pt. 466) 256.

According to the canons of interpretation of statutes, it is a cardinal principle that, where the ordinary and plain meaning of words used are clear and unambiguous, effect must be given to those words in their natural and ordinary meaning or literal sense without resorting to any intrinsic aid. See: OKOTIE-EBOH V. MANAGER (2004) LPELR 2502 (SC).

In YUSUFU & ANOR V. OBASANJO & ORS (2003) LPELR -3540 (SC), this Court held that “corrupt practices” denote or can be said to connote and embrace certain perfidious and debauched activities which are felonious in character being redolent in their depravity and want of ethics.

By the same token, in OLAREWAJU V. AFRIBANK (2001) LPELR-2573 (SC), this Court adopted the definition of “malpractice” at pages 762 and 667 of the Chambers’ 20th Century Dictionary 1983 Edition, where it was defined as “an evil or improper practice; professional misconduct; treatment falling short of reasonable skill or care; illegal attempt of a person in position of trust to benefit himself at others loss.”

It suffices therefore to say that the words “corrupt malpractices” entail conduct that might or affect the honest and impartial exercise of a duty; encompassing a vicious and fraudulent intention to evade the prohibitions of the law; something against or forbidden by law; moral turpitude or exactly opposite of honesty involving intentional disregard of law from purely improper motives. – Per Tijjani Abubakar, JSC

EFCC – THE CRIMINAL OFFENCES EFCC WAS CREATED TO PROSECUTE – THE CRIMINAL OFFENCES ENCOMPASSED UNDER THE EFCC

The United Nations Convention Against Corruption, particularly article 15 provides for domestication and criminalization of offences under the convention by State parties, in line with this obligation therefore, Nigeria enacted the EFCC Act.

Article 15 of the Convention provides as follows:

Article 15. Bribery of national public officials

Each State Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences, when committed intentionally:

I think it is at this stage, improper to import and encompass all criminal offences under the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment Act) 2004, the criminal offences contemplated by the Convention must be offences fitting the statement of purpose of the Convention, the criminal offences must not be at large as to include every conceivable criminal offence. – Per Tijjani Abubakar, JSC

SECTION 46 EFCC ACT – CONDUCT OF COURTS IN INTERPRETING THE GENERAL WORDS ‘ANY FORM OF CORRUPT MALPRACTICE’ UNDER SECTION 46 OF EFCC ACT

In Section 46 of the EFCC (Establishment) Act under consideration, the general words that call for interpretation are “any form of corrupt malpractices” following the particular words “… embezzlement, bribery, looting”, An application of the ejusdem generis rule to the interpretation of the words “any form of corrupt malpractices” does not lend credence to the position taken by the Respondent.

Indeed, the words “any form of corrupt malpractices” must be construed within the context of the specific class which it follows, and must be confined to the particular class. In my humble view therefore, the legislature thought it is proper and for right and good reasons, to place the general expression “any other form of corrupt practices” to come after the offences “embezzlement”, “bribery” and “looting” and same must be confined to such specific words and not to expand, extend or elongate it to accommodate any corrupt malpractices at large. A fortiori, it must be pointed out, as the learned senior Counsel for the Appellant rightly argued and as conceded by the Respondent, that the test for ascertaining if a criminal conduct can be regarded as an economic and financial crime is such that must be a non-violent criminal and illicit activity committed with the objective of earning wealth. I do not think it will be safe to regard the offence of attempt to pervert the course of justice which the Appellant was convicted for, where it has not been shown that it was committed with the objective of earning wealth, and be regarded as an economic and financial crime, thereby vesting the power to investigate and prosecute in the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission. – Per Tijjani Abubakar, JSC

JURISDICTION – WHERE A COURT OF LAW DEALS WITH A MATTER WITHOUT JURISDICTION

The law is well settled that where a Court of law deals with a matter without jurisdiction, so doing amounts to embarking on a worthless exercise because no matter how brilliantly well the case is conducted, it will be a complete nullity. It is the law that order of the Court made without jurisdiction is a nullity. See: ODOFIN V. AGU (1992) NWLR (pt. 229) 3501 NIDOCCO V. GBAJABIAMILA (2013) 14 NWLR (pt. 1374) 350 & EKPEYONG V. NYONG (1975) 2 SC (Reprint) 65 at 73-74. In the circumstance therefore, this issue is resolved in favor of the Appellant against the Respondent. – Per Tijjani Abubakar, JSC

ISSUES – POWERS AND CONDUCT OF COURTS WHEN MODIFYING OR RE-FRAMING ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

I have no doubt at all, that a Court has the inherent power, in the interest of justice, to reject, modify or re-frame issues distilled for the determination of a case before it. However, the exercise of this power is not open-ended or limitless, the issue so formulated must be rooted in the grounds of appeal, the Court must ensure that any issue so modified, or re-formulated comes within the ambit of the complaint contained in the grounds of appeal. See: FRN V. BORISADE (2015) LPELR-24301 (SC), where my lord and brother NWEZE, JSC held as follows and I quote:

“…Even then, the power of this Court to reformulate issues is not in doubt in so far as the issues so re-formulated are within the grounds of appeal. The Court, usually, embarks on this option for the purpose of clarity and precision when it observes that the issues, which the parties distilled, are clumsy; imprecise or are proliferated, Reptico S.A. Geneva v. Afribank Nig. Plc. (2013) LPELR -20662 (SC) 35, A-D; Unity Bank Plc, v. Bouari [2008] 2 SCM 193; [2008] All FWLR (pt. 416) 1825; [2008] 7 NWLR (pt. 1086) 372; Emeka Nwana v. FCDA and Ors. [2004] 17 SCM 25; Agbakoba v. INEC [2008] 12 SCM (pt. 2) 159; [2008] All FWLR (pt. 410) 799; [2008] 18 NWLR (pt. 1119) 489. It can, also, do this for a more judicious and proper determination of the appeal or to narrow the issue or issues in controversy in the interest of brevity, Musa Sha Jnr. and Anor v. Da Rap Kwan and Ors. [2000] 8 NWLR (Pt. 670) 585; [2000] 5 SCNJ Okoro v. The State [1988] 12 SC 191; Latunde and Anor v. Lajunfin [1989] 5 SC 59; Unity Bank Plc v. Edward Bouari [2008] 7 NWLR (pt. 1086) 372, 401; [2008] 2 SCM 193…” – Per Tijjani Abubakar, JSC

COURTS – CONDUCT OF COURTS TO ISSUES NOT PLACED BEFORE THE COURT FOR RESOLUTION – CONDUCT OF COURTS IN REFORMULATING ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The settled position of the law is that when an issue is not placed before the Court for discourse, the Court has no business whatsoever delving into it and dealing with it. A Court of law has no business whatsoever delving into issues that are not properly placed before it for resolution, a Court of law has no business being over-generous and open-handed, dishing out unsolicited reliefs, a Court of law is neither father Christmas granting unsolicited reliefs, nor Knight errant looking for skirmishes all about the place, a Court of law as an impartial arbiter must confine itself to the reliefs sought and the issues before it submitted for resolution. See: EJOWHOMU V. EDOK-ETER LTD (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt. 39) 1 at 21, OSSAI V. WAKWAH (2006) 2 SCNJ 19 at 36 and CHIEF FRANK EBBA V. WASHI OGODO & ANOR (1984) 4 SCNLR 372.

It follows therefore, that when re-formulating the issues crafted by the contending parties, as the issues in controversy, the Court of Appeal must ensure that such re-formulated issue(s) have foundation and are rooted in the grounds of appeal contained in the notice of appeal before it. The power of the Court of Appeal is limited to re-formulating issues that are capable of addressing the grievance of an Appellant, who has taken all necessary steps to ventilate his grievance against the decision of a trial Court, the Court of Appeal has no business engaging in crafting fancy and flowery issues for determination in the abstract, employing words that are catchy and tantalizing. – Per Tijjani Abubakar, JSC

APPEAL – WHERE A DECISION OF A COMPETENT COURT IS NOT APPEALED AGAINST

The law is settled that a decision of a Court of competent jurisdiction not appealed against remains valid, subsisting and binding on the parties and is presumed acceptable by them. It is also the law that where there is an appeal on some points only in a decision, the appeal stands or falls on those points appealed against only while the other points or decisions not appealed against remain valid, subsisting and unchallenged. See: MICHAEL V. THE STATE (2008) LPELR – 1874 (SC); where my lord MUSDAPHER (JSC, CJN) (of blessed memory) said as follows:

“It is the law that where there is an appeal on some points only on a decision, the appeal stands or falls on those points appealed against only while the other points or decision not appealed remain unchallenged.”

See also:

CAPTAIN SHULGIN OLEKSANDR & ORS v. LONESTAR DRILLING COMPANY LIMITED & ANOR (2015) LPELR-24614 (SC). – Per Tijjani Abubakar, JSC

COURTS – CONDUCT OF COURTS WHEN THE OFFENCE A PARTY IS CHARGED WITH IS NOT DEFINED BY LAW

Having found that the offence is not defined, the only logical inference the trial Court was bound to make is that the aforesaid Section is inconsistent with the provisions of Section 36(12) of the Constitution and refrain from fruitless evaluation and determination of the guilt of the Appellant on a charge founded on an offence which is not defined by law. – Per Tijjani Abubakar, JSC

JURISDICTION – THE IMPORTANCE OF JURISDICTION IN ADJUDICATION – WHEN A COURT IS DEEMED TO HAVE JURISDICTION

The position of the law is well settled that jurisdiction is the live wire of every case. It is the foundation upon which competence of the Court to adjudicate on any matter rest. Where a Court is robbed of jurisdiction to determine a case, the entire proceedings remain a nullity no matter how well conducted and decided.

See National Union of Road Transport Workers v Road Transport Employers Association of Nigeria (2012) 10 NWLR (pt 1307) 170.

A Court is said to have jurisdiction and competence to determine a suit when:-

(a) It is properly constituted as regards the number and qualification of its members;

(b) The subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction and there is no feature in the case which prevents the Court from exercising its jurisdiction; and

(c) The case comes before the Court initiated by due process of law.

Madukolu v Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341; Akeem v Unibadan (2001) 15 NWLR (pt 736) 352. – Per J. I. Okoro, JSC

S. 46 EFCC ACT – THE MEANING OF ‘ANY FORM OF CORRUPT MALPRACTICES’ UNDER S.46 EFCC ACT

I agree that the phrase “and any form of corrupt malpractices” in Section 46 of the EFCC Act does not refer to all forms of corrupt practices, at large. The legislature rather contemplated any other form of malpractices bordering on financial impropriety in the class of “… money laundering, embezzlement, bribery, looting” already mentioned. – Per J. I. Okoro, JSC

ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIME – WHAT CONSTITUTES ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIME

From the opening paragraph of Section 46, it is clear that every economic and financial crime must be intended to acquire illicit wealth to the detriment of another or the government. There is no doubt also that the investigative and prosecutorial powers of the commission as derived from Section 6, Section 7 and Section 14-18 of the EFCC Act extends to and are not limited to offences created by the Act alone, but to any other Federal or State Law relating to financial and economic crimes. – Per H. M. Ogunwumiju, JSC

INTERPRETATION – FOUR RULES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

In the first instance, without delving into the issue of the precise definition of the phrase “attempt to pervert the course of justice” we need to determine if that phrase as an offence is contemplated in any of the provisions of the EFCC Act which describe the offences which the EFCC is empowered to investigate and prosecute.

There are four rules of statutory interpretation. They will aid in this case. These are the literal, the golden rule, the mischief rule and the purposive rule. The literal rule of interpretation is the oldest rule & is followed by Judges all over the world. The rationale behind the Literal Rule is that it prevents Courts from making biased decisions when the issue relates to sensitive and political matters by sticking to the dictionary meaning without discretion (without expansion or contraction) of the very words used in the statute. Thus, when the words of the statute are very clear, plain and unambiguous without equivocation, then the Courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of the consequences.

The Golden Rule is complimentary to the Literal Rule, in that the principle of interpretation is that the words of a statute should be given the meaning according to the intention of the legislature and its intention could be known from the literal or grammatical interpretation of the language used.

The Mischief Rule is one that asks what the law was before the Act and what defects there were, that were addressed by the legislation under review.

The Court then looks at the gap or mischief the law wanted to cure and proceeds to fill the gap.

The purposive rule or approach to statutory interpretation involves the consideration of three factors. (1) The language of the provision (2) the context in which the language is used and (3) the purpose of the legislation or statutory scheme in which the language is found. In short, extraneous materials to the words of the legislation are used. – Per H. M. Ogunwumiju, JSC

PENAL STATUTES – THE WAYS THE CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL STATUTES SEEM TO MANIFEST – CONDUCT OF COURTS WHEN IN DOUBT WHETHER THE ACT OR OMISSION IN QUESTION IN A CASE FALLS WITHIN THE STATUTORY WORDS

The law is settled that penal statutes are to be construed strictly to the benefit of the Respondent and where there is any reasonable construction that avoids the penalty in any particular case, the Court must adopt the construction. Wilson v. A.G. Bendel State & Ors (1985) 1 NWLR Pt. 4 Pg. 570, (1985) LPELR 3496 (SC), (1985) 2 SC Pg. 191; Nig. Navy v. Lambert (2007)18 NWLR Pt. 1066 Pg. 300, (2007) LPELR- 2026 (SC), (2007) 7-10 SC Pg. 57.

The most important consideration here is whether the phrase “attempt to pervert the course of justice” is within the contemplation of the law as a financial or economic crime which affects the activities of government or its administration.

The best elucidation on this point is that given by Fatai-Williams, JSC (as he then was) in Henry Umoera v. C.O.P. (1977) LPELR -3371 (SC) also reported (1977) 7 SC (Reprint) Pg.12, (1977) 1 ANLR Pg. 259 in where His Lordship stated as follows:

“The strict construction of penal statutes seems to manifest itself in four ways; firstly, in the requirement of express language for the creation of an offence; secondly, in interpreting strictly words setting out the elements of an offence; thirdly, in requiring the fulfilment to the letter of statutory conditions precedent to the infliction of punishment, and finally, in insisting on the strict observance of technical provisions such as Section 107 of the Criminal Code under which the Appellant was charged and convicted. Therefore, if there is any ambiguity in the words which set out the elements of the act or omission declared to be an offence, so that it is doubtful whether the act or omission in question in the case falls within the statutory words, the ambiguity will be resolved in favour of the person charged. This, in practice, is by far the most important instance of the strict construction of penal statutes. For example, a provision in a statute penalising the impersonation of “any person entitled to vote” was not violated by impersonating a deceased voter. (See Whitely v. Chappell (1869) reported in Law Journal, Magistrates’ Cases (1831-1896) at p.51). Again, in Smaje v. Balmer (1965) 2 All E.R. 248, where the question before the Court was whether a stone came within the words “any dangerous or offensive weapon or instrument” in Section 28(1) of the Larceny Act, 1916, the learned Judge said that the provisions must be construed strictly and consequently held that a stone did not fall within those words which dealt with weapons or instruments. Finally, the law is that omissions will not readily be supplied in a penal statute. So, the Weights and Measures Act 1835, Section 28 (an English Statute) which empowered inspectors to examine- “weights, measures and scales” in shops and, if upon examination it appeared that- “the said weights or measures” were light or unjust, to seize them, was held not to authorise a seizure of scales because the word “scales” was omitted from the items which can be seized. (See Thomas v. Stephenson (1853) 22 L.J.Q.B. 140.)”

In view of the rule that forbids the widening of penal provisions, the ejusdem generis rule cannot be used to make “attempt to pervert course of justice”, an offence which can be enveloped in the general phrase “any form of corrupt malpractices”. – Per H. M. Ogunwumiju, JSC

BRIBERY – WHETHER BRIBERY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS COMES WITHIN THE ACTS WHICH CONFERS PROSECUTORIAL POWERS ON EFCC

In Rickey Tafar v. FRN (supra), the Court of Appeal held that bribery of a public officer or the offering of gratification to a public officer comes within the ambit of bribery which confers prosecutorial powers on the EFCC since it violates existing legislation governing the economic activities of government or its administration. I agree with that view so long as the mens rea and actus reus of the offence is proved. – Per H. M. Ogunwumiju, JSC

S. 46 EFCC ACT – WHETHER ATTEMPTING TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE COMES WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF S.46 EFCC ACT

There is no doubt that the genre of offences contemplated by Section 46 of the EFCC Act excludes the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice not being an offence that can be brought under the canopy of financial and economic crimes. The wordings of the crime itself takes it outside the ambit of “corrupt malpractices” since the specie of “corrupt malpractices” are clearly stated in the EFCC Act. The Court is not allowed to import words or phrases outside the statute to add to the scope of a penal statute in particular. – Per H. M. Ogunwumiju, JSC

STATUTES – CONDUCTS OF COURT IN ORDER TO DISCOVER THE REAL INTENTION OF THE LAWMAKER IN ENACTING A STATUTE – MEANING OF ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES

The law is settled that in order to discover the real intention of the lawmaker in enacting a statute, all the relevant Sections to the issue in controversy or better still the entire provisions of the statute must be read together. See:

MOBIL OIL (NIG.) PLC V. IAL 36 INCO (2000) 6 NWLR (PT. 659) 146 AT 168, where this Court emphasized a community reading of the provisions of a statute as follows:

“It is an elementary principle and fundamental to the construction of the provisions of any statute to read the sections as a whole to enable the interpreter to gather the collective sense of the provisions. Where the subject matter construed concerns other sections of the same statute, all the related provisions must be read, considered and construed together as forming a composite whole. It is imperative in the construction of a section to read together all the sections and paragraphs. This is because the sub-sections or sub-paragraphs may be and are necessarily complimentary to and explains the meaning and scope of the main section of or sub-sections in the same Act.”

​A community reading of the provisions of Sections 1, 6 and 7 of the Act clearly confirms that the EFCC has the power to cause investigation to be conducted as to whether any person has committed any offence under the Act or any other law relating to economic and financial crimes including the Criminal Code or Penal Code. The Commission not only has the power to investigate whether any person has committed an offence under any law relating to economic and financial crimes but it also has the power of enforcement of such law by virtue of Section 7 (2) of the Act. Section 13 (2) (a) of the Act empowers the Commission to prosecute the offenders under the Act.

However, that Section is not to be construed in isolation from the other sections. It must be read together with Sections 6 (1) (a) and 7 (f) which empowers the Commission to conduct an investigation as to whether any person has committed an offence relating to economic and financial crimes. Thus, the Commission has the power of investigation, enforcement and prosecution of an offence relating to economic and financial crimes under any law, including Criminal Code and Penal Code. That was the position of this Court in Alao v. F. R. N. (2018) LPELR 43905 SC, and the Court of Appeal decision in Emmanuel Ahmed v. F.R.N (2009) 13 NWLR (PT 1159) 536 at 551–552.

The question then to answer is whether this case is one that relates to economic and financial crimes which falls under the purview of the EFCC’s powers pursuant to its enabling act. The powers of the EFCC as it relates to economic and financial crimes has been established by numerous cases. These cases have held that the EFCC only has the power to investigate cases that deal with Economic and Financial crimes. Economic and financial crimes pursuant to Section 46 of the EFCC Act is defined as:

“The non-violent criminal and illicit activity committed with the objectives of earning wealth illegally either individual or in a group or organized manner thereby violating existing legislation governing the economic activities of government and its administration and includes any form of fraud, narcotic drug trafficking, money laundering, embezzlement, bribery, looting and any form of corrupt malpractices, illegal arms deal, smuggling, human trafficking and child labour, illegal oil bunkering and illegal mining, tax evasion, foreign exchange malpractices including counterfeiting of currency, theft of intellectual property and piracy, open market abuse, dumping of toxic wastes and prohibited goods, etc.

In the case of KALU V. FRN & ORS (2016) LPELR- 40108(SC) this Court held thus:

“Sections 6 (m) and 46 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act vest in EFCC the function and duty of investigating and prosecuting persons reasonably suspected to have committed economic and financial crimes…”  – Per Abdu Aboki, JSC

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
2. Criminal Law of Lagos State No. 11 of 2011
3. Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act, 2004
4. Criminal Code Act
5. Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2007

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT