Delivering judgment, Justice Nkeonye Maha described the EFCC's request as a speculative "fishing expedition" rather than an investigation based on specific allegations of financial wrongdoing.
The court also nullified a June 2, 2025 letter sent by the anti-graft agency to the Oyo State Accountant-General, in which it demanded extensive financial records from the state government.
The ruling followed a suit filed by Oyo State Governor Seyi Makinde, the state Attorney-General and the Accountant-General, challenging the legality of the EFCC's request.
According to a statement issued by the governor's Special Adviser on Media, Sulaimon Olanrewaju, the court acknowledged the EFCC's statutory authority to investigate financial crimes but held that such powers must be exercised in accordance with the Constitution and the rule of law.
Justice Maha ruled that requests for information by the commission must be reasonable and connected to identifiable allegations of wrongdoing.
The judge further held that Section 38 of the EFCC Act permits the commission to obtain information for the purpose of investigating offences under the law but does not empower it to embark on broad or speculative inquiries into government finances.
The court found that the EFCC's request was excessively broad and lacked the specificity required to justify such an extensive demand for official records.
"His Lordship noted that the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs to fair hearing could not be trampled upon under the guise of investigation," Olanrewaju said.
The dispute began after the EFCC requested documents, including details of contracts awarded by the Oyo State Government and payments made to contractors from 2021 until the date of its request.
The state government challenged the request, describing it as oppressive, unreasonable and excessively broad, given the large number of contracts executed during the period under review.
Represented by the Oyo State Attorney-General, Abiodun Aikomo, the government argued that while the EFCC has investigative powers, those powers remain subject to constitutional protections and cannot override the right to fair hearing.
It also maintained that anti-corruption investigations should be based on credible allegations and evidence rather than sweeping demands covering several years of government transactions.
According to the statement, the state government had earlier written to the EFCC, asking the commission to identify the contractors or companies under investigation so that the relevant documents could be made available.
"The government subsequently wrote to the EFCC, requesting the commission to specify the contractors or companies under investigation so that appropriate documents could be provided. When the EFCC failed to respond, the state filed the suit," the statement said.
In its defence, the EFCC argued that Section 38 of its enabling Act empowers it to demand information from individuals, public institutions, corporations and other organisations in the course of investigations.
However, the court rejected the commission's position, ruling that its investigative powers are not unlimited and must be exercised within constitutional boundaries.
Justice Maha further held that law enforcement agencies must establish a legitimate investigative basis before compelling the production of official documents.
0 Comments
DISCLAIMER
The views and opinions expressed on this platform as comments were freely made by each person under his or her own volition or responsibility and were neither suggested nor dictated by the owners of News PLATFORM or any of their contracted staff. So we take no liability whatsoever for such comments.
Please take note!