The ruling contrasts with long line of judicial decisions asking courts to exercise restraints in stopping anti-corruption agencies from carrying out their statutory duties, and calls back to mind a 2024 landmark judgement of the Supreme Court affirming the agencies investigative powers.
The Federal High Court 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 anti-graft agency’s request amounted to a speculative “fishing expedition” rather than a lawful investigation based on specific allegations.
Delivering judgement on Wednesday in suit FHC/IB/CS/61/2025 filed by the Oyo State Government, Justice Nkeonye Maha held that although the EFCC possesses statutory powers to investigate financial crimes, such powers must be exercised within the limits of the Constitution and the rule of law.
The court consequently set aside the commission’s letter to the state Accountant General on 2 June 2025, which sought extensive financial records from the Oyo State Government, ruling that any request for information must be reasonable and linked to identifiable allegations of wrongdoing.
Ms Maha held that Section 38 of the EFCC Act empowers the commission to obtain information only for the investigation of offences under the Act and does not authorise speculative or blanket inquiries into government finances.
According to the judgement, the EFCC’s request was too broad and lacked the specificity required to justify such an extensive demand for official records.
The judge, according to the statement issued by the Special Adviser on Media to Oyo State Governor Makinde, Sulaimon Olarewaju, said the EFCC’s proposed investigation into Oyo State’s finances was speculative and amounted to a fishing expedition.
“His Lordship noted that the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs to fair hearing could not be trampled upon under the guise of investigation,” Mr Olarewaju said.
“The Oyo State Government instituted the suit after receiving the EFCC’s letter to the state Accountant General on 2 June 2025, demanding, among other things, copies of all contracts involving the state and details of all transactions and payments made to contractors from 2021 to the date of the letter.”
The plaintiffs, the Governor of Oyo State, the Attorney General and the Accountant General argued that the commission’s request was oppressive, unreasonable and excessively wide, given the volume of government contracts executed during the period.
Represented by the Attorney General, Abiodun Aikomo, the state maintained that while the EFCC has investigative powers, those powers are subject to constitutional safeguards and cannot override citizens’ right to fair hearing.
The government further argued that anti-corruption investigations must be evidence-driven and based on identifiable allegations rather than broad requests covering several years of government transactions.
According to the statement, court documents showed that before approaching the court, the state government had written to the EFCC asking it to identify the contractors or companies under investigation so that relevant documents could be produced.
“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.”
In its defence, the EFCC relied on Section 38 of the EFCC Act, arguing that the provision empowers the commission to demand information from any person, public authority, corporation or organisation without hindrance.
EFCC’s lawyer, I.G. Ojibor, argued that the provision entitled the commission to obtain the requested documents as part of its investigative mandate.
However, Ms Maha rejected that interpretation, holding that the commission’s powers are not unlimited and must be exercised within constitutional boundaries.
The judge further held that the constitutional right to fair hearing cannot be undermined under the guise of investigation and that law enforcement agencies must demonstrate a legitimate investigative basis before compelling the production of documents.
“In conclusion, Justice Maha ruled in favour of the Oyo State Government, set aside the EFCC’s letter dated 2 June 2025, and declared that any request by the commission must be reasonable and tied to specific allegations.”
The ruling comes despite the absence of any known past charges or court findings against the Oyo State Government over financial misappropriation. Although the EFCC reportedly sought access to the state’s contract and payment records dating back to 2021, it did not identify any specific contractor, transaction or alleged offence under investigation, a key issue that informed the court’s decision.
Recently, the Makinde administration has faced political allegations over its management of public funds from opposition figures and pressure groups, while some civic organisations have criticised the state’s fiscal transparency and public access to financial records.
The state government has consistently denied allegations of financial misconduct and maintained that it publishes its audited financial statements and other fiscal reports in line with legal requirements.
Wednesday’s judgement contrasts with a long line of judicial decisions urging court not to stop statutory bodies from performing the functions for which they are established, as probe does not amount to a criminal conviction.
It also introduces a new dimension to the arguments over the limits of EFCC’s investigative powers, coming two years after a landmark judgement of the Supreme Court affirmed that federal anti-corruption agencies, including the EFCC and the ICPC, can investigate and prosecute persons for crimes committed at both the state and federal levels.
In the judgement prompted by a suit filed by 19 state governments including Oyo in 2024 principally seeking the scrapping of the anti-corruption agencies, the Supreme Court rebuked the plaintiffs, saying their legal action was driven by selfishness.
The suit, which activated the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, followed a now familiar pattern whereby officials rush to court to seek protection from probe at the slightest move by an anti-corruption agency to open investigation.
In the 2024 judgement affirming the establishment of the anti-corruption agencies and their investigative and prosecutorial powers, the Supreme Court held that the first plaintiff (Kogi State) “opened the can of worms and skeletons in its cupboard” of its selfish intention with its clai that the EFCC had invited and investigated officials of the state government.
The court said the claim was the height of “the selfish reasons of the plaintiffs’ suit,” adding that Kogi offered itself as a “puppet” for corrupt practices by leading the charge against the anti-corruption agencies.
