WorldStage– Nigeria’s Federal High Court sitting in Ibadan has officially restrained the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) from investigating the financial accounts and contract records of the Oyo State Government.
Presiding judge Justice Nkeonye Maha declared the anti-graft agency’s sweeping demands an unconstitutional “fishing expedition” and a highly speculative roving inquiry.
The legal clash began after an EFCC letter dated June 2, 2025, ordered the Oyo State Accountant-General to hand over copies of all state contracts and comprehensive payment records to contractors dating back to 2021.
While Justice Maha acknowledged the EFCC’s statutory power to combat financial crime, the judge ruled that requests must be tied to specific, identifiable allegations rather than blanket data sweeps.
The court emphasized that blanket, unspecified document requests infringe on the plaintiff’s constitutional right to a fair hearing and create an undue, oppressive burden on state operations.
Led by Attorney General Barrister Abiodun Aikomo, the state argued that the Oyo State Government actively requested the EFCC to name the specific contractors or transactions under suspicion, but the commission ignored the request and pushed for a total financial sweep.
EFCC counsels I.G. Ojibor and S. Adamu had in the case relied heavily on Section 38 of the EFCC Establishment Act (2004), asserting it grants the agency unhindered power to demand records from any individual or government authority.
The court however firmly rejected the EFCC’s stance, clarifying that Section 38 is explicitly restricted to investigating existing, verified offenses and does not authorize open-ended financial audits of sovereign state entities.
EFCC attempted to investigate the Oyo State Government’s finances based on a broad, blanket request for transactional records rather than specific allegations of financial crimes.
The attempt included blanket demands for contract and payment records, with EFCC sending an official letter to the Oyo State Accountant-General requesting copies of all contracts executed by the state government.
The commission demanded granular details of transactions and payments made to all state contractors spanning several years.
However, the Commission failed to name any specific contractor, third-party company, or exact transaction under criminal suspicion.
The anti-graft agency actively mounted pressure on state officials to surrender documents regarding disbursements from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, Contingencies Fund, and Security Vote.
The Oyo State Government argued that these funds were lawfully approved through Appropriation Laws passed by the Oyo State House of Assembly, meaning they fell under state legislative oversight rather than federal executive intervention.
