A Federal High Court sitting in Ibadan has restrained the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) from proceeding with its planned investigation into the finances of the Oyo State Government, ruling that the agency’s request amounted to a speculative exercise.
Justice Nkeonye Maha, while delivering judgment in Suit No. FHC/IB/CS/61/2025 on Wednesday, held that although the EFCC has statutory powers to investigate financial crimes, such powers must be exercised in accordance with the Constitution and the rule of law.
The court ruled that the Commission’s request, contained in a letter dated 2 June 2025, seeking extensive financial records from the Oyo State Government, amounted to what it described as a “fishing expedition”.
Justice Maha held that the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs, particularly the right to a fair hearing, could not be infringed under the guise of an investigation.
The suit was instituted by the Oyo State Government after the EFCC wrote to the state’s Accountant-General requesting copies of all contracts involving the state and details of payments made to contractors from 2021 to 2 June 2025.
According to the government, it responded by asking the Commission to identify the specific contractors or companies under investigation to enable it to provide the relevant documents. It said the EFCC did not respond to the request, prompting the filing of the suit.
The plaintiffs in the case are the Governor of Oyo State, the Attorney-General of the state and the Accountant-General of the state.
Counsel to the plaintiffs, led by the Attorney-General, Abiodun Aikomo, argued that the EFCC’s request, which covered several years of government transactions, was oppressive, unreasonable and excessively burdensome, considering the volume of contracts executed during the period.
The plaintiffs further argued that the anti-graft agency’s investigative powers were subject to constitutional safeguards and that investigations must be based on evidence and specific allegations rather than broad, indiscriminate inquiries.
However, counsel to the EFCC, I.G. Ojibor, who led S. Adamu, relied on Section 38 of the EFCC Act 2004, arguing that the provision empowers the Commission to demand information from any person, authority, corporation or company without hindrance.
The Commission maintained that the provision entitled it to seek the requested documents as part of its investigative mandate.
In his judgment, Justice Maha disagreed with the EFCC’s position and set aside the Commission’s letter of 2 June 2025.
The judge held that any request for information by the EFCC must be reasonable and linked to identifiable allegations or offences under the EFCC Act.
He further ruled that Section 38 of the Act empowers the Commission to obtain information only for the purpose of investigating offences within its jurisdiction and does not authorise speculative or blanket investigations into the affairs of individuals or institutions.