7 the enactments specifically set out there under but also any other law or regulations relating to economic and financial crimes including the criminal and Penal, Code. It is therefore, the prosecution Counsel’s submission that the EFCC is competent to prosecute offences under the Penal Code by virtue of SECTION 6(C ) AND (M) OF THE EFCC ACT. The prosecution postulates that in view of the high premium attached to speedy disposal of criminal cases, the Attorney General of the Federation delegates his powers to the various law enforcement agencies of the Federal Government, therefore, the charge is not defective in anyway, nor is the officer who initiated it incompetent to do so because the EFCC prosecutor qualifies as “authority” under SECTION 174 OF THE CONSTITUTION and on the authority of FRN VS OSAHON (2006) 5 NWLR (PART 97) SC 361. The prosecution Counsel added that by SECTION 2 OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION, Nigeria operates cooperative Federalism as opposed to dualist Federalism, and under cooperative Federalism, some agencies such as the EFCC are common agencies for both Federal and State. He buttressed his point by further arguing that other security and law enforcement agencies, like EFCC, can on their own without an express fiat prosecute criminal cases, forinstance, the Nigerian Prison Service has the power to prosecute criminal cases. He placed reliance on the case of COMPTROLLER, NIGERIAN PRISONS SERVICE LAGOS VS ADEKANYE (2000)15 NWLR (PART 790) 318. He added that it is clear from the authority of AMADI VS FRN (2008)18 NWLR (PART 119) SC 259 and FRN VS OSAHON (SUPRA), the EFCC indeed does not need any express fiat from the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation or any other person in order to prosecute criminal cases. He urged this Court to so hold. On objection to the charge, the prosecution Counsel relied on various authorities to contend that it is settled law than any objection to a charge for any formal defect on the face of the charge for any perceived irregularity relating to procedure shall be taken immediately after the charge has been read over to the accused and not later. See AMADI VS FRN (2008)18 NWLR (PART 119)259 AT 277 PARAGRAPHS B – F; OKAROH VS STATE (1990)1 NWLR (PART 125)128; MOGAJI VS NIGERIAN