A federal high court sitting in Ibadan has barred the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) from continuing its planned investigation into the finances of the Oyo state government.
Delivering judgment on Wednesday, the presiding judge, Nkeonye Maha, ruled that the commission’s request for the state’s financial records amounted to a speculative “fishing expedition” rather than a lawful probe anchored on specific allegations.
The court also nullified the EFCC’s June 2, 2025 letter addressed to the Oyo state accountant-general, which sought extensive financial documents from the government.
In suit number FHC/IB/CS/61/2025, Maha held that although the EFCC possesses statutory authority to investigate financial crimes, such powers must be exercised within constitutional limits and in accordance with the rule of law.
According to a statement issued by Sulaimon Olanrewaju, special adviser on media to Governor Seyi Makinde, the court emphasised that any request for information by the commission must be reasonable and linked to identifiable allegations of wrongdoing.
The judge noted that section 38 of the EFCC Act permits the commission to obtain information strictly for the purpose of investigating offences under the Act and does not justify speculative or sweeping inquiries into government finances.
Maha further found that the EFCC’s request was excessively broad and lacked the required specificity to warrant 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 statement explained that the Oyo state government initiated the suit after receiving the EFCC’s June 2, 2025 letter requesting, among other documents, 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 plaintiffs — the governor, attorney-general, and accountant-general of the state — argued that the request was oppressive, unreasonable, and overly expansive, considering the volume of contracts executed within the period.
Represented by Abiodun Aikomo, the Oyo attorney-general, the state maintained that while the EFCC has investigative powers, such authority is subject to constitutional safeguards and cannot override the right to fair hearing.
The government also argued that anti-corruption investigations must be evidence-based and tied to specific allegations, rather than broad requests covering several years of government transactions.
Court documents, as cited in the statement, revealed that before approaching the court, the state government had written to the EFCC requesting clarification on the contractors or companies under investigation to enable it provide relevant documents.
“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 relied on section 38 of the EFCC Act, arguing that the provision empowers it to request information from any individual, public institution, corporation, or organisation in the course of its investigations.
Counsel to the commission, I.G. Ojibor, maintained that the law entitled the EFCC to obtain the requested documents as part of its investigative mandate.
However, the court rejected this argument, with Maha ruling that the commission’s powers are not absolute and must be exercised within constitutional boundaries.
The judge reiterated that the right to fair hearing cannot be undermined under the guise of investigation, stressing that law enforcement agencies must establish a legitimate investigative basis before compelling the production of documents.
