Recently, some state governors approached the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the EFCC, ICPC, and NFIU. Was that the right move?
The states went to court challenging the constitutionality of the anti-graft agency, and the Attorneys General were the ones who handled the matter. The Supreme Court has decided the case. An Attorney General of a state was suspended because he put himself in the case. That tells you how frivolous such an action was. It was a baseless case from the beginning. They shouldn’t have even taken that step.

Part of the reforms we need in the judicial system is to ensure that there is a penalty for instituting frivolous cases. There must be very severe penalties for bringing frivolous matters to courts.

Why would you describe the case as frivolous?
It was frivolous from the beginning, it lacked basis. How would states challenge the constitutionality of EFCC, ICPC, and NFIU? How could some Attorneys General put their states in such a case? In all material facts, the case was frivolous.

What is your take on the proposal to merge the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC)?
I think the proposal for the merger was driven by an intention to cut costs. I don’t think EFCC alone has the human resources to tackle the level of corruption in Nigeria. So, if you merge the two, it will narrow the effectiveness of the fight against corruption. I believe they can run in parallel.

Of course, in some cases, their functions overlap. That is inevitable for different reasons. The courts have supported their powers to investigate at the state level. That has widened their responsibilities significantly. EFCC’s functions are not only on government corruption, while ICPC largely focuses on government officials. So, by the time you merge them, the scope will be too narrow.

Despite the existence of the two agencies, corruption is still rife in the country. Is that not a sign of the ineffectiveness of the two agencies?
No; we need to look at the circumstances of their operations. When we talk about corruption, the underlying factor for corruption is inducement. Sometimes, this inducement might not be money. It might even be positions. If the agencies go after somebody who is very influential in society, the kind of pressure that can come upon them is better imagined. One must commend them for the seemingly little they are doing.

It must be stated that corruption is a societal problem. If you set up a business in Nigeria, particularly, the retail end of business, if the owner of the business is not careful, the employees will bankrupt the place in no time. So, it’s a societal problem. We need to have a fundamental approach to tackling corruption.

Looking at the leadership of the EFCC since the present Chairman came on board, what is your assessment of his performance?
I like to look at EFCC at two levels. There are high-profile corruption cases. Then, there are the ground-level corruption cases. I think that at the low level, the attitude toward lawyers before the current Chairman came was quite deplorable, but it has improved significantly. Their response to court processes has also improved.

Now, in the context of the larger role that EFCC was primarily established to tackle, I think his approach is good. The EFCC Chairman has said it’s better to focus on prevention than trying to catch people who have unlawfully enriched themselves.

Has the chairman made any profound or fundamental impact with his approach?
Corruption in Nigeria is a hydra-headed monster. The best way to tackle it is from the preventive side. I don’t think EFCC has enough personnel to even deal with all of the volume of corruption cases in the country. It’s quite draining on them. However, the approach that embraces a new philosophy that speaks to prevention is the most impactful thing that I think the Chairman has done.

To tackle graft at the sub-national, some states are trying to establish their own anti-corruption agencies. How effective can these agencies be?
Corruption has eaten into the fabric of our society. Now, the largest groups of people who are accused of corruption are the governors. Now, if a state sets up an anti-corruption agency and the governor is corrupt, how effective do you think that agency will be?

Somehow, we seem to lack people who are courageous in positions, people who will put their office and integrity ahead of interference. That’s the reality. So, we need to tackle corruption differently. It has to be in such a way that there’s no feeling of selectiveness.

But some governors have been convicted.
Many of the high-profile people who were convicted did not fully serve their sentences. There were instances where former governors were sentenced, but at the tail-end of the Buhari-led government, they were pardoned. It’s not good for the optics. Some are even good at delaying trials for several years.
Years back, the Oyo State government established its anti-corruption agency. How effective has it been in the last four years?
I don’t think its impact has been felt. What we have is a situation where the governor will set up an agency and has the power to appoint officers to that office. He will appoint people whom he or she feels can be manipulated. Alternatively, he picks somebody who can’t be manipulated but doesn’t provide a conducive environment for the agency to function.

The current head of the anti-corruption agency in our state is known to be a woman of very high integrity, but has the office been allowed to be effective?
Let’s look at the conflicting judgments from courts of coordinate jurisdiction. How does it portray Nigeria’s democracy?
There are times people, particularly government officials or politicians will institute an action in the Federal High Court that clearly does not have jurisdiction over such matters. For reasons best known to the Federal High Court, it will assume jurisdiction, and the government or the opponent will now go to the state High Court, which probably has jurisdiction. Then, people will start saying there’s a conflicting judgment. That is such an ideal situation of a conflicting judgment.

You can be in the same High Court, maybe, the judge is not aware of the existence of that particular suit, and another judge is hearing that same suit, but at that point, you would think the lawyers would draw the attention of the judge to it before getting to the stage where they will deliver judgment.

Another case of conflicting judgment that tends to occur is at the Court of Appeal in different jurisdictions. But I think a better way is for the higher court to lay down the principles to be followed by the lower courts.

There is this policy of stare decisis, and it’s binding on lower courts so that we will have a situation where if a judgment of the lower court is contradictory to the principles laid down, and there’s a deliberateness on the part of the lower court, then appropriate sanctions can be meted out to the erring judge. But if you look at the number of courts we have, both the appellate and the lower courts, it might be inevitable to have conflicting judgments.

Is there no possibility of automating the court system so that if a case has been decided on, all other courts will be aware of it?
We have such systems. There’s a case I’m handling that we have conflicting judgments. One judgment says that the ICPC Act is only applicable to persons who are acting in the official capacity. So, the preconditions are that the person will be acting in his or her official capacity to come within the ambit of that law.

But there are other decisions by courts of coordinate jurisdictions, particularly the Court of Appeal which say the ICPC Act can apply to anybody, once that person is an employee of a government agency, whether he’s carrying out official functions or not.

So, we’re hoping that the Supreme Court will lay down the final principle and make a final decision on that.

Is there any rule or any step the National Judicial Council (NJC) can take in this direction?
The function of NJC is not only about disciplining judges, having a conflicting judgment is not wrong but it’s the circumstances around it. If a judge is sitting in a Court of Appeal cabinet, and gives a decision on an appeal today, and the Court of Appeal in Benin gives a conflicting judgment on the same principle on probably similar facts, it’s normal. This is because the decision of the Court of Appeal of Benin is not binding on the decision of other courts of coordinate jurisdiction.

But the judgment of a lower court must not conflict with the principles laid down by a superior court

Is there no penalty for any judge who assumes jurisdiction on a matter that does not belong to his or her court?
Judges are custodians of the law, but there is no human being that will have absolute knowledge of the law. You can’t threaten the discretion of judges too much as to keep them in a straitjacket. They have to exercise that jurisdiction. But in some cases, it is so apparent that you can’t defend the decision of a judge to assume jurisdiction on some matters.

In such a case, now, is there any penalty?
The word penalty might appear too strong. One will have to write a petition to the National Judicial Council (NJC), which will now review the facts of the case. Where the judge is found wanting or found to have abused his position in the handling of a case, there are different options available to the NJC. The judge can be cautioned or suspended. NJC can even recommend the sack of the judge.

What is your take on the Tax Reform Bills proposed by President Bola Tinubu and the reactions that greeted their introduction?
It’s a typical Nigerian response to anything they feel has a regional colouration. I expect any reasonable person to look at the tax bills and bring out those clauses they are not comfortable with. Let them bring out those which they think are objective and see what can be done about the clauses they object to. Rather, they are claiming that the North will be disadvantaged. However, from my thinking, the state likely to be most disadvantaged is Lagos.

How is it disadvantageous to Lagos?
The Value Added Tax (VAT) is a consumption tax. It should be paid by the person receiving the money for the consumption. Unlike the existing tax law, the person paying does not situate the money he received and is paying to where it was consumed. So, if MTN is paying VAT, it pays as a Lagos payment, whereas they have subscribers all over. So, the bill will correct that. A lot of them have not read the bill.

Again, if a country wants to boost investment, it has to reduce its taxes, not only in terms of the percentage but in terms of layers. We have different taxes. By the time you add all the other layers of taxes companies pay, they will hit almost 40 per cent. No investor wants to invest in a place where there are too many taxes that will eat up his or her profit.

Another issue under the new bills is the collection system. Some revenues of the government that are being collected by different government agencies will now be collected by the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS). So, what is the problem that they don’t want FIRS to be the sole collector of revenue?