Stop ICPC From Investigating Us, Bayelsa State Government Tells Court


The Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), has urged a Federal High Court, sitting in Yenagoa, to prevent the Bayelsa State government from stopping the investigation of allegations of corruption levelled against some members of the state government.

The Commission, in a preliminary objection filed before Justice Hamma Adama Dashen, told the court that it had the statutory powers to investigate any act of corruption levelled against officials of state governments in Nigeria.

The Bayelsa State Government, through the state’s Attorney-General, had gone to court to challenge the powers of ICPC to demand records of financial expenditure of the state government to carry out an investigation into alleged corrupt practices by some past and serve public functionaries in the state.

The Solicitor-General of the state, Preye Agedah, Esq, in his argument, told the court that ICPC wrote several “Letters of Investigation Activities” pursuant to S. 28 and 29 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2000 (ICPC Act 2000) to several functionaries of the state government, including the Secretary to the State Government, Accountant-General, and others demanding for financial records of the state.

Agedah submitted further that the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, as amended, vests on the Bayelsa State House of Assembly and the Auditor-General of Bayelsa State the exclusive powers to direct an investigation into the finances of the state for the purposes of “exposing mismanagement, corruption or waste”.

He argued further that the demand made by ICPC for financial records of the state from 2008 to date looks more like an audit than an investigation. He, therefore, requested the court to stop ICPC from conducting a general audit of the state and usurping the constitutional role of various organs of the state government under the guise of investigating alleged corrupt practices.

Responding, counsel for ICPC, Adenekan Shogunle, Esq, submitted that the issue of the validity and constitutionality of the ICPC Act 2000 was decided with finality by the Supreme Court of Nigeria in the case of AG ONDO v AG FEDERATION (2002), a case in which Bayelsa State was a party.

He further submitted that accordingly, having been made a party to the decision of the Supreme Court, no state in Nigeria can turn around to challenge the constitutionality and validity of the ICPC Act 2000 without offending the principle of issue estoppel.

He submitted that the remedy available to Bayelsa State, and indeed every other state that was privy to the decision, was to go back and ask the Supreme Court to revisit the issue and not to initiate a fresh claim before any other court in Nigeria.

On the issue of whether or not ICPC had the power to audit the financial records of Bayelsa State, Shogunle argued that the allegation of seeking to audit the finances of the state was speculative and not based on any cogent evidence.

The ICPC counsel further argued that the objective of the Commission was clearly spelt out in the letters of “Investigation Activities” addressed to the officials of the state government in their capacity as custodians of public records, adding that ICPC officials introduced in the letters were detectives and not auditors.

He cited many decisions of the Supreme Court to show that the powers of legislative oversight vested in the state Houses of Assembly to order or conduct an investigation into the finances of the state for the purpose of ‘exposing mismanagement, corruption or waste’ was neither exclusive nor synonymous with the power of criminal investigation vested in the executive arm of government, stressing that the statutory powers of ICPC do not conflict with that of any state House of Assembly.

Shogunle then asked the Bayelsa State government to stop crying wolf where there was none and urged the court to dismiss the claim for lacking in merit and for constituting an abuse of court process.

The trial judge, Dashen, adjourned the matter to another date for ruling after listening to arguments from both parties.

About The Author

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *