By Order 3 rule 2 (2) of the Supreme Court Act, 1985 civil proceedings in the original jurisdiction of this Court may be commenced by inter alia filing originating summons. Order 3 rule 6 (1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1985 as amended, also permits any party claiming any legal or equitable right, the determination of which depends on the construction of the Constitution or any other enactment, to begin proceedings by causing an originating summons to issue.
In exercise of the provisions of the aforementioned rules on behalf of the government of Ondo State, the Plaintiff brought this action against the Attorney-General of the Federation and the Attorneys-General of the 35 States comprising the federal Republic of Nigeria, as representatives of the Federal and their States' Government respectively. The Plaintiff applies for the determination of the following questions:-
-
1
"A determination of the question whether or not the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000, is valid and as a law enacted by the National Assembly and in force in every State of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (including Ondo State).
-
2
A determination of the question whether or not the Attorney-General of the Federation (1st Defendant) or any person authorised by him can lawfully initiate legal proceedings in any court of law in Ondo State in respect of any of the criminal offences created by any of the provisions of the said Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000.
-
3
A declaration that the Corrupt Practices and Other Related offences Act, 2000, is not in Force as law in Ondo State.
-
4
A declaration that it is not lawful for the Attorney-General of the Federation (1st Defendant) or any person authorised by him to initiate legal proceedings in any court of law in Ondo State in respect of the criminal offences purported to be created by the provisions of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act. 2000.
-
5
An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Federal Government, its functionaries or agencies whomsoever (including the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission) or howsoever from Executing or applying or enforcing the provisions of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000 in Ondo State whether by interfering with the activities of any person in Ondo State (including any public officer or functionary or effect or servant of the Government of Ondo State) in exercise of powers purported to be conferred by or under the provisions of the said Act or otherwise howsoever.
-
6
An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Attorney General of the Federation including his officers, servants and agents whomsoever or howsoever from exercising any of the powers vested in him by the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 or by any other law in respect of any of the criminal offences created by any of the provisions contained in the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000."
At the conclusion of trial, the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision upheld the Plaintiff's action in part, and declared Sections 26(3) and 35 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act null and void.
