Chief Adebiyi Olafisoye V. Federal Republic Of Nigeria (2004)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

TOBI, J.S.C.

Chief Adebiyi Olafisoye is the appellant. He was charged along with three other persons before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory on two counts under the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000. I read the counts:

COUNT I

“That you Mr. Adeyemi Omowunmi, Chief Adebiyi Olafisoye and Mr. Milton Paul Ohwovoriole (SAN), on or about the 16th day of November, 2000 at Abuja in the Abuja Judicial Division, conspired with one another to give as a gratification the sum of N3,500,000.00 (Three million, five hundred thousand only) to Alhaji Mika Anache, a member of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry for the Investigation of the Management of Nigeria Airways Limited and other members of the said Commission in order to induce the members of the Commission to show favour to Chief Adebiyi Olafisoye and his company, Fidelity Bond of Nigeria Limited in the discharge of the official duties of members of the Commission and thereby committed an offence contrary to section 26(1)(c) and punishable under section 9(1) of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000.

COUNT II

That you Mr. Adeyemi Omowunmi, Chief Adebiyi Olafisoye and Mr. Milton Paul Ohwovoriole (SAN) on or about the 16th day of November, 2000 at Abuja in the Abuja Judicial Division, gave as gratification the sum of N3,500,000.00 (Three million, five hundred thousand naira only) to Alhaji Mika Anache a member of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry for the investigation of the management of Nigeria Airways Limited and other members of the said Commission, in order to induce members of the Commission to show favour to Chief Adebiyi Olafisoye and his company, Fidelity Bond of Nigeria Limited in the discharge of the official duties of the members of the Commission and thereby committed an offence contrary to section 9(1)(a) and punishable under section 9(1) of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000.”

The appellant objected to the jurisdiction of the High Court on the ground that the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000 is unconstitutional and void. The objection was overruled in a ruling delivered on 24th June, 2000. Basing its decision on the earlier case of Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Andrew Tyem and Others, suit No. CR/2/2001 delivered on 13th June, 2001, the court came to the conclusion that the National Assembly validly enacted the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act. The court based its decision on the combined effect of sections 4(2), 15(5), Items 60(a) and 67 in Part I of the Second Schedule and section 2(a) of Part III of the Second Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. The court accordingly dismissed the objection of the appellant.

The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal against the ruling of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory. The Court of Appeal referred the following questions for reference to the Supreme Court.

“(i) Whether the combined effect of the provisions of sections 4(2), 15(5), Items 60(a), 67 and 68 in Part I of the Second Schedule and section 2(a) of Part III of the Second Schedule of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, confer powers of the National Assembly to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria with respect to offences arising from, connected with or pertaining to corrupt practices and abuse of power.

(ii) In the light of the answer to Question (i), whether the National Assembly has power to enact sections 9( 1)(a), 9(1), 26(1)(c) and 26(3) of the Corrupt Practices and Related Offences Act, 2000.”

The Court of Appeal accordingly, referred the above two questions by way of case stated in accordance with the provisions of section 295(3) of the Constitution to the Supreme Court. As usual, parties filed and exchanged briefs. Appellant formulated the following issues on the two questions for reference to this court.

“Issue 1: The Act as an exercise of power by the Federal Government.

Issue 2: Principles governing constitutional validity of governmental Acts in a federal system.

Issue 3: Whether the Act impedes or interferes with a state government’s management of its affairs.