In a bold move that promises to redefine Nigeria’s anti-corruption architecture, the House of Representatives on Thursday passed for second reading a bill that would remove the President’s unilateral power to sack the Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), making such an action subject to the approval of two-thirds of the National Assembly.
A Timely Reform: Why the Amendment Now?
Sponsored by Hon. Yusuf Adamu Gagdi (APC, Plateau), the proposed legislation—HB 2493—is anchored on the premise that, since its establishment in 2004, the EFCC’s enabling law has not kept pace with the evolving complexity of financial crime in Nigeria. The bill’s champions argue that the current statute grants excessive influence to the executive branch, treating the removal of the EFCC Chair as a matter of executive discretion rather than due process.
Gagdi told the plenary, presided over by Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu, that amendments are long overdue to bring the commission’s operations in line with contemporary challenges—cybercrime, illicit financial flows, cryptocurrency abuse, terrorism financing, and money laundering through real estate, among others. He insists the EFCC must be insulated from political interference to function with professionalism, credibility, and public confidence.
Key Change: From Presidential Prerogative to Legislative Check
Under the current EFCC Act, Section 3(2), the President can remove a member of the Commission—including the Chair—if he believes the individual is unable to discharge duties, has misconducted themselves, or is deemed no longer in the public interest. But under the proposed law, such removal would require the approval of two-thirds of both the Senate and the House of Representatives.
By shifting the decision from executive fiat to legislative consensus, the reform would erect a constitutional check against arbitrary dismissals and reinforce institutional independence for the EFCC. Supporters view it as a remedy to decades of perceived executive overreach in Nigeria’s anti-graft institutions.
Institutional Support and Legislative Momentum
Backing the bill, Ginger Obinna Onwusibe, Chairman of the House Committee on Financial Crimes, argued that many of today’s financial threats were unforeseen in 2004, and that the Act must respond to emergent realities. The bill was adopted unanimously for the second reading and has since been referred to the relevant committee for further scrutiny and public hearings.
Broader Implications: Safeguarding Anti-Corruption Credibility
Should this reform ultimately pass into law, the EFCC would gain a firmer legal buffer against politicization. It would signal to Nigerians—and to international partners—that Nigeria is committed to evolving the institutional infrastructure necessary for truly independent oversight. The law could help restore public trust in anti-corruption agencies, which have frequently been accused of serving political ends.
However, critics caution that legislative approval is no guarantee of impartiality. If the National Assembly is itself polarized by party interests, the “two-thirds approval” could introduce gridlock or political bargaining into what should be impartial oversight. The success of this reform will depend heavily on how faithfully the process is executed, and whether amendments preserve both independence and accountability.
Historical Context: A Revisit of Legislative Oversight in Anti-Corruption
Calls to rein in executive removal powers are not new. In earlier reforms to the EFCC and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Offences Commission (ICPC), there were proposals to vest their leadership with fixed tenure and require legislative removal processes. The persistent challenge has always been striking the balance between insulation from executive influence and responsiveness to democratic accountability. Today’s attempt is thus part of a long arc of constitutional and institutional refinement in Nigeria’s governance.
What Happens Next?
Committee Stage & Public Input: The bill must be reviewed line by line in committee, where public hearings and expert inputs may shape amendments.
Third Reading & Passage: If passed in both chambers (House and Senate), it will go to the President for assent—or potential veto.
Transitional Clauses: Any successful law would likely include provisions on how the first removal under the new regime is handled, and whether it applies to incumbent chairs.
Challenges & Litigation: The executive branch or affected parties may challenge the law’s constitutionality, especially around separation of powers or retroactivity.
The move by the House of Representatives to shift the removal power of the EFCC Chair from presidential discretion to legislative approval is a watershed moment in Nigeria’s anti-graft discourse. If executed well, it could strengthen institutional independence, reduce political interference, and shore up public confidence in the fight against corruption. As the bill advances through the legislative process, its success or failure will hinge on deliberate, transparent, and principled debates not only in the National Assembly but across civil society, media, legal minds, and the electorate itself.
0 Comments