A Nigerian fashion designer and businesswoman, Hadiza Usman, has filed a motion before the Federal High Court in Abuja seeking to commit the Executive Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Mr Ola Olukoyede, to prison for the agency’s alleged refusal, failure, and neglect to obey a judgment order of the court delivered on April 20, 2026, which directed the EFCC to return all items and personal effects confiscated from her home and to tender a public apology to her.
The committal motion, dated May 14, 2026, and filed in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/2698/2025, was brought pursuant to Order 35 Rule 1(2B) and Rule 2 of the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2019, and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court as preserved by Section 6(6A) of the 1999 Constitution.
The motion seeks an order of the court committing Mr Ola Olukoyede, Executive Chairman of the EFCC, to prison and detaining him in custody until he obeys the orders of the court made on April 20, 2026. Specifically, the court had ordered the EFCC to release forthwith to the applicant all items, personal effects removed, carried away, or confiscated from her house, as listed in the inventory attached to the EFCC’s counter-affidavit as Exhibit EFCC 3, and to tender a public apology to the applicant as appropriate.
The applicant’s legal team is led by Sir Nkemakolam Okoro, S.C., Esq., alongside C.C. Chukwu (Mrs), Emmanuel Emerenini, Esq., and Enore Omijie, Esq. of Dynamic Option Chambers, Suite F37, Melita Plaza, Area 11, Garki, Abuja.
The case has its origins in events that occurred on November 6 and 7, 2025. According to court documents, EFCC operatives invaded the private home of Hadiza Usman at No. 36 Gnassingbe Eyedema Street, Asokoro, Abuja, arrested her, detained her at the EFCC Headquarters in Jabi, Abuja, from 9am on November 6 to 11:30pm on November 7, and confiscated her personal belongings — including jewelleries, designer watches, gold items reportedly worth over N800 million, landed property documents, purchase receipts, and a private safe.
The action was taken at the behest and instigation of the second respondent, Dr Halima Alfa, a lawyer called to the Nigerian Bar who had business dealings with the applicant. The court found that the underlying dispute between the two women was a private civil matter involving debts, loans, and goods had and received in the normal course of their business relationship as women who dealt in jewelleries, high-quality clothing, and related merchandise.
In January 2026, Hadiza Usman filed an originating motion for the enforcement of her fundamental rights before the Federal High Court, Abuja, alleging violations of her rights to privacy, personal liberty, dignity of person, freedom of movement, and ownership of property as guaranteed by the 1999 Constitution and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
On April 20, 2026, Hon. Justice Peter O. Lifu (JP) of the Federal High Court, Abuja, delivered judgment in favour of Hadiza Usman, making several declarations and orders.
The court declared that the invasion of the applicant’s private home and the carting away of her jewelleries, personal effects, and landed property documents over alleged indebtedness was illegal, unlawful, and unconstitutional, constituting a gross violation of her right to privacy, personal liberty, and personal dignity.
The court further declared that the arrest and detention of the applicant by the EFCC on the instigation of Dr Halima Alfa on November 6 and 7, 2025, and the subjection of the applicant to bail at the EFCC headquarters, constituted a breach of her fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Constitution and Articles 7 and 12 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the Banjul Charter).
Justice Lifu found that the dispute between the applicant and the second respondent was a purely civil matter with no element of criminality, and that neither the EFCC nor any security agency had the right to recover debts, loans, or goods on purely civil transactions. The judge relied on the Supreme Court decision in EFCC v. Diamond Bank (2018) to support this position.
The court noted with concern that the EFCC had invaded a citizen’s residence in Asokoro over what it described as “minor female business squabbles,” searched the premises without a search warrant, and criminalised a civil transaction in public glare all at the instigation of a second respondent who was herself a lawyer and who should have known that the appropriate remedy for debt recovery was through the civil courts.
Justice Lifu observed that the EFCC had admitted arresting and detaining the applicant and searching her premises, while the second respondent had admitted having business dealings with the applicant and setting the law in motion against her. The court also noted that the second respondent had moved from police stations to a Magistrate Court and ultimately to the EFCC in a bid to recover money owed in a civil relationship.
The court ordered the EFCC to release forthwith to the applicant all items, personal effects removed, carried away, or confiscated from her house, as listed in the inventory attached to the EFCC’s counter-affidavit as Exhibit EFCC 3.
The court restrained the respondents from further interfering with the personal liberty of the applicant on the civil matter.
On the basis of Section 35(4) of the Constitution, the court ordered the EFCC to tender a public apology to the applicant as appropriate, while the second respondent, Dr Halima Alfa, was ordered to pay the sum of N50 million as compensation and damages for wrongly setting the law in motion, leading to what the court described as the “wanton, grave and serial violation” of the applicant’s fundamental rights.
According to the committal motion and the supporting affidavit deposed to by Susan Nnenna Nwaze, a Litigation Assistant at Dynamic Option Chambers, despite the subsisting orders of the Federal High Court duly served on the EFCC, the commission has continued to hold on to the items and personal effects of the applicant confiscated from her house and has also failed or refused to tender the public apology ordered by the court.
The affidavit states that the judgment and judgment orders were duly served on the EFCC via a letter written by the applicant’s counsel to the Executive Chairman, urging compliance. An acknowledged copy of the letter, dated April 2026, was attached as an exhibit to the motion. The letter specifically drew the EFCC’s attention to the subsisting judgment, attached copies of the judgment and judgment orders, and urged “immediate compliance.”
Despite service, the affidavit states that the EFCC has “in utter disregard and disrespect to this Honourable Court, continued to hold on to the items and personal effects of the Applicant, as though the order never existed.”
The deponent further stated that unless the Executive Chairman of the EFCC is committed to prison, the commission will not obey the orders of the court.
In a written address in support of the committal motion, the applicant’s counsel framed a single issue for determination: whether the court has the requisite jurisdiction to grant the application as prayed.
Counsel relied on the Supreme Court decision in AG Anambra State v. AG FRN & Ors (2005), which held that it is the unqualified obligation of every person against whom a court order is made to obey it unless and until that order is discharged, and referenced the landmark case of Military Governor of Lagos State v. Ojukwu (1986), which established that an order of court remains legally binding and valid until set aside by due process of law.
Counsel also relied on the Court of Appeal decision in Peoples Democratic Party v. Ajang Alfred Iliya & Ors (2023), where the appellate court held that compliance with court orders must be total and not partial, and that a court must not only bark but must “bark and bite and if situation warrants, break the bones” to teach a disobedient party that overlooking a subsisting court order was “a joke taken too far.”
The applicant’s counsel further relied on Section 287(3) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides that the decisions of the Federal High Court shall be enforced by all authorities and persons in any part of the Federation, submitting that the EFCC is under strict constitutional obligation to obey the court’s orders.
The first respondent, the EFCC, is represented by Attah Monday Ocholi, Esq. The second respondent, Dr Halima Alfa, is represented by Lebo-Albert Ekito A., Fatima Oiza Idris, Emmanuel Onah, and Nasiru Arikushola of Halima Alfa & Associates, Halima Alfa Chambers, No. 16 Ajayi Crowther Street, Asokoro, Abuja.
The person sought to be committed to prison is Mr Ola Olukoyede, Executive Chairman of the EFCC, at the EFCC Headquarters, Jabi, Abuja.
The committal motion against the Executive Chairman of the EFCC is a rare and significant legal action. If granted, it would represent one of the most dramatic instances of a court committing the head of a major law enforcement agency to prison for contempt a development that would send shockwaves through Nigeria’s law enforcement and governance structures.
The case also raises broader questions about the EFCC’s involvement in purely civil disputes. The trial court’s finding that the underlying matter had “no element of criminality at all” and that it was “not the type of case the EFCC should get involved in” constitutes a judicial rebuke of the anti-graft agency’s practice of intervening in private debt disputes at the instigation of complainants, particularly where the complainants are lawyers who should know that the proper forum for debt recovery is the civil courts.
Neither the EFCC nor Mr Olukoyede has publicly responded to the committal motion as at the time of this report. The matter is pending before the Federal High Court, Abuja, and awaits a hearing date.
