A Federal High Court in Ibadan has issued a landmark ruling barring the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) from continuing its planned investigation into the finances of the Oyo State Government, declaring that the anti-graft agency's request for financial records lacked a proper legal foundation and constituted an unconstitutional fishing expedition.
Court Nullifies EFCC Letter and Demands for Records
Delivering judgment on the matter, Justice Nkeonye Maha held that the EFCC's request for documents from the Oyo State Government was excessively broad and speculative, rather than an investigation anchored on specific allegations of wrongdoing. The court consequently nullified the commission's June 2, 2025 letter addressed to the Oyo State Accountant-General, which had sought extensive financial records from the state government.
The ruling followed a suit filed by Oyo State Governor Seyi Makinde, the state's Attorney-General, and the Accountant-General, who jointly challenged the legality of the EFCC's demand. According to a statement issued by the governor's Special Adviser on Media, Sulaimon Olanrewaju, the court acknowledged that while the EFCC possesses the legal authority to investigate financial crimes, its powers must be exercised strictly in line with the Constitution and the rule of law.
Judge Rules Request Unreasonable and Lacks Specificity
Justice Maha emphasized that requests for information from government entities must be reasonable and directly linked to identifiable allegations of wrongdoing. She specifically noted that Section 38 of the EFCC Act only permits the commission to obtain information for the investigation of offences under the Act and does not authorize broad or speculative inquiries into government finances.
“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 in the statement, summarizing the court's position. The judge found that the EFCC's request was excessively broad and failed to provide the level of specificity required to justify such a wide demand for official records, thereby violating the plaintiffs' right to fair hearing.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute originated when the EFCC requested a comprehensive set of documents from the Oyo State Government, including copies of all contracts awarded by the state and details of payments made to contractors from 2021 up to the date of the request. The state government argued that the request was oppressive, unreasonable, and too extensive, considering the large number of contracts executed during that multi-year period.
Represented by the Oyo State Attorney-General, Abiodun Aikomo, the government maintained that although the EFCC has investigative powers, those powers remain subject to constitutional protections and cannot override the right to fair hearing. The state further argued that anti-corruption investigations should be based on credible allegations and evidence rather than sweeping demands covering several years of government transactions.
State's Prior Efforts to Cooperate
According to the statement, the Oyo State Government had earlier written to the EFCC, requesting the commission to specify the contractors or companies under investigation so that the relevant documents could be provided. “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 explained.
In its defense, the EFCC argued that Section 38 of its establishing Act empowers it to demand information from individuals, public institutions, corporations, and other organizations during investigations. However, the court rejected that position, ruling that the commission's 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.
Implications of the Ruling
The ruling sets a significant precedent regarding the limits of the EFCC's investigative powers, particularly in relation to state governments. It reinforces the principle that anti-corruption agencies must adhere to constitutional safeguards and cannot engage in speculative or overly broad inquiries without specific allegations of wrongdoing. The decision underscores the importance of due process and fair hearing rights in the conduct of financial investigations.
