On Wednesday, the Federal High Court in Abuja prohibited the federal government from making any further deductions from the federation’s account to fund the Nigerian Police Trust Fund (NPTF) or other institutions not listed in the Nigerian constitution.
The PTF is not created by the Nigerian constitution, but by the National Assembly through the enactment of the Nigerian Police Trust Fund (Establishment) Act which came into force in 2019.
Sections 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b) of the Act allow for the deduction of 0.5 percent of the total revenue accrued in the Federation Account to be paid to the NPTF to increase funding of the Nigerian Police Force. .
The Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC) had announced at its April 2020 meeting that deductions would begin in earnest.
But about a month after the FAAC meeting, the Rivers State government, led by Governor Nyesom Wike, filed its lawsuit on May 20, 2020, challenging the planned deductions and the law on which they were based.
The Rivers state government, through its Federal Attorney General, challenged what it described as illegal deductions made from the federation account, owned jointly by the federal, state and local governments, to fund the NPTF.
He argued that it was not the responsibility of the state governments, but rather the federal government to finance the police.
He urged the court to order the return of the money deducted from the Federation Account and deposited in the NPTF since he was informed about it at the FAAC meeting in April 2020.
Judgment
In ruling on the lawsuit, Ahmed Mohammed, the judge, declared as “illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional” the direct allocations made so far by the federal government from the federation account to finance the NPTF.
Mr. Mohammed argued that Section 161 and Section 162 of the 1999 Constitution were violated by the federal government making direct appropriations to the NPTF from the Account of the Federation.
He added that Section 162 of 1999 is unequivocal in the sense that only the federal, state and local governments will receive funds directly from the Federation Account.
The court also held that section 4 of the Nigerian Police Trust Fund Act 2019 on which the federal government relies to justify illegal deductions from the federation account is inconsistent with section 162 of the Nigerian Constitution. 1999, which recognizes only the federal, state, and local governments.
He also agreed with the plaintiff that the levies imposed on companies operating in Nigeria by the federal government to be paid directly to the NPTF rather than the Federation Account were also unlawful, unlawful and unconstitutional.
The Rivers state government had argued that such levies should be paid into the federation’s account in order for it to benefit from them.
He said that the failure to pay such funds into the federation account and rather into the NPTF has deprived him of substantial accruable revenue for the state as taxes.
Refund
While upholding the plaintiff’s claim, the judge ordered that funds belonging to the Rivers estate, but used by the federal government to fund the NPTF, be repaid to the state.
However, the judge refused to extend a similar reimbursement order to the remaining 35 states on the grounds that they were not parties to the lawsuit and that Rivers State, as a plaintiff in this matter, did not file on behalf of others.
The court upheld all the arguments of Joseph Daudu, Senior Advocate for Nigeria (SAN), who represented Rivers State, that where provisions of the 1999 Constitution are clear and unambiguous, they should be given their ordinary meaning.
The court also agreed with Mr. Daudu that the federal government was completely wrong in the interpretation given to section 4 of the Nigerian Police Trust Fund Act to the effect that the Nigerian Police was established only to the federal government and as such the funding is solely on the shoulder of the federal government.
Suit
Rivers State in a lawsuit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/511/2020 and brought on his behalf by Mr. Daudu, former president of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), challenged the federal government’s decision to allocate funds directly from the Federation Account to fund some of its agencies on the grounds that the decision violated section 162 of the 1999 Constitution.
The Rivers State government also claimed that by the unlawful action of the federal government, it had deprived it of substantial income from the federation account and therefore asked the court to strike down the allocation of unlawful funds from the federation account. federation.
The defendants in the matter are the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice AGF, the Accountant General of the Federation, Revenue Mobilization Allocation Commission and Fiscal and the Minister of Finance.
AGF’s defense dismissed
Only the Federal Attorney General’s Office filed proceedings to defend the actions of the federal government.
advertisements
In its preliminary objection, the AGF had asked the Federal Superior Court to decline jurisdiction in the matter on the grounds that said claim should be filed directly with the Supreme Court.
But the judge dismissed the preliminary objection before moving forward with sentencing.
The court held that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can only be invoked when a dispute involves the federation and any of the component states.
On the objection raised by the AGF that the Rivers state government should have sought and obtained the authorization of the Federal Superior Court before initiating the lawsuit, the judge said that the plaintiff had no reason to request the authorization of the court to present the case.