By Hamza N.Dantani Esq
(Rights activist & advocate for the rule of law
Humaiz2128@nigerianbar.ng)
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) was established as one of Nigeria’s foremost anti-corruption agencies with the noble mandate of investigating and prosecuting economic and financial crimes without fear or favour. Its statutory responsibilities are intended to promote accountability, transparency, and public confidence in government institutions. However, these lofty objectives can only be achieved when the Commission conducts its affairs with absolute impartiality, fairness, and strict adherence to the rule of law.
As a Human Rights Lawyer and an Advocate for the Rule of Law, I have consistently maintained that no individual, institution, or government should be above the law. Equally, no person or institution should become a victim of selective investigation, political persecution, or abuse of statutory powers under the guise of fighting corruption. Justice must not only be done; it must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.
Recent developments surrounding the decision of the EFCC to place a Post No Debit (PND) restriction on the bank accounts of the Osun State Government, particularly at a politically sensitive period preceding the State’s local government and general electoral activities, raise serious constitutional, legal, and institutional concerns. Regardless of the allegations being investigated, every action of a law enforcement agency must conform with the Constitution, statutory provisions, and binding judicial precedents.
The timing, manner, and circumstances surrounding the restriction have generated widespread public concern and have created the unfortunate perception that the EFCC may be acting selectively or pursuing political objectives rather than administering justice impartially. Such perceptions, whether justified or otherwise, undermine public confidence in the Commission and weaken the credibility of Nigeria’s anti-corruption framework.
More importantly, Nigerian courts have repeatedly held that neither the EFCC nor any financial institution possesses unlimited powers to freeze or restrict the operation of bank accounts without first obtaining the appropriate order of a competent court.
The Court of Appeal emphatically settled this position in NPG Properties & Construction Works Ltd v. Zenith Bank Plc (2023) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1908), where the Court held:
“In the instant case, the stop order on the operations of the appellant’s account was not in due allegiance to the injunction of the law as contemplated by Section 34 of the EFCC Act and Section 6(5)(b) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act. The act was not done in the manner and for the purpose prescribed by law. In the circumstance, the Post-No-Debit order placed on the appellant’s account constituted an unwarranted curtailment of its interest over the funds therein.”
Similarly, in G.T.B. Plc v. Adedamola (2019) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1664) 30, where the EFCC directed Guaranty Trust Bank to freeze the customer’s account without first obtaining a court order, the Court unequivocally held:
“Before freezing a customer’s account or placing any form of restraint on any bank account, a bank must be satisfied that there is an order of court.”
These authorities are neither isolated nor exceptional. Nigerian appellate courts have consistently cautioned the EFCC against bypassing judicial oversight before restricting access to bank accounts. The requirement of obtaining a court order is not a mere procedural technicality; it is a constitutional safeguard against arbitrary executive action and abuse of power.
Even where the EFCC considers it necessary to seek an interim freezing order, such an application must be made before a court of competent jurisdiction, supported by credible evidence, and determined judicially and judiciously. The courts serve as an essential constitutional check on investigative agencies, ensuring that the fundamental rights of individuals, corporations, and governments are not violated under the pretext of criminal investigation.
The doctrine of the rule of law demands equality before the law. Every government, political party, public office holder, and private citizen should be subject to the same legal standards. Unfortunately, there is an increasing public perception that the EFCC demonstrates greater enthusiasm when investigating opposition-controlled states or political actors while appearing reluctant to pursue similar allegations involving individuals or governments associated with the ruling party.
Whether that perception is accurate or not, it is a dangerous one. Institutions derive legitimacy not merely from the powers granted to them by law but from the confidence reposed in them by the people. Once an anti-corruption agency is perceived as partisan or politically influenced, its moral authority is significantly diminished.
If similar financial transactions or allegations exist in states governed by the ruling party without attracting comparable investigative measures or restrictions, legitimate questions inevitably arise regarding consistency, equality, and institutional neutrality. Anti-corruption enforcement must never create the impression that political affiliation determines who is investigated and who enjoys immunity.
The fight against corruption must not become an instrument for settling political scores or influencing electoral outcomes. Selective justice is no justice at all. An anti-corruption agency must remain independent of political interests and resist every temptation to appear as an extension of any administration or political party.
The EFCC’s recent press statement attempting to justify the restriction on the Osun State Government’s accounts, in my respectful opinion, falls short of addressing the central legal issue. Rather than explaining whether the Commission first obtained a valid order of a competent court authorizing the restriction, the statement largely focuses on the underlying allegations. That approach misses the constitutional question.
The issue is not whether the EFCC has the power to investigate alleged financial crimes. It unquestionably does. The real question is whether those investigative powers were exercised strictly in accordance with the law. In a constitutional democracy, the end never justifies the means. Every governmental action must derive its legitimacy from compliance with due process.
No agency of government, however well-intentioned, is permitted to disregard judicial pronouncements or statutory safeguards. The Constitution remains supreme, and every public institution is subordinate to it.
The EFCC must appreciate that public confidence is one of its greatest assets. Actions that appear politically selective or legally questionable will inevitably erode that confidence and damage the reputation the Commission has worked for years to build. The fight against corruption is too important to be weakened by perceptions of bias, inconsistency, or abuse of power.
Ultimately, Nigerians deserve an anti-corruption agency that investigates every allegation of corruption irrespective of political affiliation, ethnicity, religion, or social status. The EFCC should demonstrate, both in words and in conduct, that there are no sacred cows in Nigeria. The law must apply equally to opposition parties, ruling parties, state governments, federal agencies, and every public official alike.
The strength of our democracy lies not in the power of our institutions to punish, but in their willingness to obey the law while exercising that power. The EFCC must therefore recommit itself to the principles of legality, fairness, impartiality, due process, and constitutionalism. Only then can it truly command the confidence of Nigerians and fulfil its mandate as an independent anti-corruption institution.
Justice cannot be selective. The rule of law cannot be partisan. Equality before the law remains the bedrock of every democratic society.
(Hamza N.Dantani Esq
Rights activist & advocate for the rule of law
Humaiz2128@nigerianbar.ng)