The Court however turned round to hold that the police could not be compelled to investigate or prosecute any criminal complaint on ground of public policy. With respect, the Supreme Court missed the point as it failed to take cognizance of the relevant provisions of the Constitution. In other words, the discretion of the anti graft agencies to decide whether or not to investigate or prosecute allegations of corruption cannot override the fundamental right of citizens to freedom of information coupled with the duty placed on them to render lawful assistance to law enforcement agencies in the discharge of their duties.

Convinced that they have discretion to investigate or prosecute allegations of corruption the anti graft agencies have often pick and choose which cases to investigate or prosecute. The latitude given to the police and other agencies clothed with prosecutorial powers was taken up in Alhaji Sani Dododo v. Economic & Financial Crimes Commission and Ors. (supra). Having submitted petitions to the anti graft agencies alleging corruption against a former governor of Sokoto State, Senator Muhammed Adama Aliero which were not investigated by the respondents the Appellant approached the Federal High Court for judicial review by filing a writ of mandamus.

In striking out the case for want of locus standi on the part of the Appellant the federal high court held that the Respondents could not be compelled to investigate or prosecute the suspect. The appeal against the verdict was also dismissed by the Court of Appeal. But the locus standi of the Appellant to institute the case was recognized when the Court (per Nwodo JCA) held that “the traditional and narrow view set out in Adesanya’s case will not attain justice in the realm of public right in the light of the Nigerian cases earlier set out on issue of locus… the African Charter provision encompassing public rights should be so construed broadly to vest locus on a tax payer who is interested in good governance and shows such interest by writing a statutory body to complain on misappropriation of public funds. Such act is disclosure of sufficient interest.”

In recognising the constitutional duty imposed on citizens to report allegations of corrupt practices by public officers to the anti graft agencies the Court of appeal said that “the Appellant, has some duty under section 24 of the Constitution 1999 to abide by the Constitution and respect its deals. He also has duty, by dint of section 24(e) of the same Constitution ‘to render assistance to appropriate and lawful agencies in the maintenance of law and order’. It is in the spirit of section 24 of the Constitution, read together with section 15(5) of the same Constitution that enjoins the state agencies to ‘abolish all corrupt practices and abuse of power’ that the appellant made his complaint of corrupt practices against the 4th respondent to the 1st and 2nd Respondents, who are no doubt lawful agencies of the Federal Government charged with police powers to investigate allegations of corrupt practices and financial crimes and prosecute the offenders.”

In the fight against corruption, the Court rightly held that aggrieved citizens who submit petitions alleging corrupt practices against public officers are entitled to the report of the investigation carried out by the police and anti graft agencies. It was the solid view of the Court that “the appellant is entitled to the investigation report on his right as the complainant. See Article 9 of the African Charter. The generality of the public are not entitled to that information until the person suspected is arraigned before a competent court for trial.”

In view of the categorical pronouncements of the appellate courts in the cases of Fawehinmi v. The President (supra) and Alhaji Dododo v. Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (supra) it can no longer be said that a tax payer has no locus standi in demanding for the investigation or prosecution of a public officer suspected to have engaged in corrupt practices. To that extent, the Federal High Court (per Kolawole J.) fell into error when it struck the case of Socio-Economic Rights Accountability Project & Ors. v. Attorney-General of the Federation & Anor. on the ground that the Plaintiffs, a group of human rights bodies, lacked the locus standi to demand for an account of the $12.4 billion which was allegedly mismanaged by the Ibrahim Babangida junta. Since the members of the Plaintiffs have a duty to render assistance to law enforcement agencies the doctrine of locus standi was improperly invoked and wrongly applied by the trial court. I

Indeed, the trial court ran into contradictions when it turned down the request of the Defendants for the ward of costs. Even though the court had struck out the case for want of locus standi it proceeded to say Plaintiffs could not be said to be “busybodies” when it held that “It will be uncharitable for anybody to describe or christen them as ‘busy-bodies’. They are not, rather, I see them as patriotic ‘corporate citizens’ of Nigeria who in my view, are driven purely by a desire to use the judicial instruments to effectuate in practical terms, the ‘fundamental objectives’ expressed in section 14(1) of the CFRN, 1999 as amended that ‘the Federal Republic of Nigeria shall be based on the principles of democracy and social justice’…. These Applicants are not busy-bodies but patriotic corporate citizens (regardless of the status of the 2nd and 3rd Applicants who did not sue through their registered trustees) whose courage to bring this action against all odds, must be commended.”
In Bamidele Aturu v. Honourable Minister of Petroleum & Ors. The legal validity of the decision of the Federal Government to deregulate the downstream sector of the petroleum industry by allowing market forces to fix the prices of petroleum products was successfully challenged at the Federal High Court by the plaintiff. In rejecting the contention of the defendant that the action was not justiciable the learned trial judge said that “the decision to deregulate the downstream sector of the petroleum industry by not fixing prices of petroleum products will not only be counter- productive, but will be a negation of that objective and a violation of the provision of the Constitution. I say this, not unmindful of the argument put forward by the 3rd Defendant that the Plaintiff cannot enforce the provision of section 16(1) (b) because it is not justiciable. …It is my considered view therefore that any decision by the government of Nigeria to deregulate the downstream sector of the petroleum industry in the face of the extant laws copiously referred to, will not only be unlawful, illegal but unconstitutional as well and therefore, null and void.”

Campaign against anti graft agencies by the ruling class

Based on the avowed commitment of President Mohammadu Buhari to fight the menace of corruption the members of the ruling class have begun to wage a campaign of calumny against the EFCC and other anti graft agencies. An influential newspaper has, without any shred of evidence, accused the EFCC leadership of wallowing in corruption while a rented crowd has “stormed” Abuja to demand for the removal of the EFCC chairman. Even some members of the ruling party have not spared the EFCC. For daring to ask certain people to account for public funds the EFCC has been accused of allowing itself to be used to settle political scores. On its own part, the Peoples Democratic Party has alleged that the anti corruption agenda of the Buhari Administration is deliberately designed to humiliate and party and embarrass the Goodluck Jonathan Administration.

The other day, the immediate National Security Adviser, Col Sambo Dasuki (rtd) had his residence searched by officials of the State Security Service based on a search warrant issued by a Magistrate. Without considering the fact that the search was carried out in line with the rule of law the SSS was accused by a section of the media of embarrassing Col. Dasuki for leading the soldiers who arrested General Buhari during the palace coup of 1985! In the same vein, police investigation into the alleged forgery of the Standing Rules of the Senate by a top national assembly staff is being politicised. Even a mere invitation extended to some persons to react to allegations linking them with multi billion naira fraud is now said to be a political vendetta.