A Federal High Court sitting in Ibadan, Oyo State, on Wednesday, 22 July 2026, restrained the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) from proceeding with its planned investigation into the finances of the Oyo State Government, describing the exercise as speculative.

Delivering judgment in suit FHC/IB/CS/61/2025, filed by the Oyo State Government, Justice Nkeonye Maha acknowledged the EFCC’s statutory powers to investigate financial infractions and crimes but emphasized that such powers must be exercised strictly in line with the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

According to the judge, the EFCC’s proposed investigation into Oyo State’s finances, particularly the demands contained in its letter of 2 June 2025, 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.

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 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 plaintiffs (Governor of Oyo State, Attorney General of Oyo State and Accountant General of Oyo State), argued through their counsel, led by the Attorney General, Barrister Abiodun Aikomo, that the EFCC’s request, covering several years, was oppressive, unduly burdensome, and unreasonable given the volume of contracts entered into during the period. They further contended that EFCC’s statutory powers are subject to constitutional limits and cannot override constitutional provisions. Investigations, they maintained, must be evidence-driven, and the EFCC cannot embark on roving inquiries without specific allegations.

In defence, EFCC counsel I.G. Ojibor, leading S. Adamu, relied on Section 38 of the EFCC Act (2004), which empowers the Commission to demand and receive information from any person, authority, corporation, or company without hindrance. He argued that this provision entitled the EFCC to conduct a blanket investigation into the state’s finances.

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. His Lordship emphasized that Section 38 of the EFCC Act empowers the Commission to demand information only for the investigation of offences under the Act, not for speculative or roving inquiries.

A Federal High Court sitting in Ibadan, Oyo State, on Wednesday, 22 July 2026, restrained the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) from proceeding with its planned investigation into the finances of the Oyo State Government, describing the exercise as speculative.

Delivering judgment in suit FHC/IB/CS/61/2025, filed by the Oyo State Government, Justice Nkeonye Maha acknowledged the EFCC’s statutory powers to investigate financial infractions and crimes but emphasized that such powers must be exercised strictly in line with the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

According to the judge, the EFCC’s proposed investigation into Oyo State’s finances, particularly the demands contained in its letter of 2 June 2025, 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.

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 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 plaintiffs (Governor of Oyo State, Attorney General of Oyo State and Accountant General of Oyo State), argued through their counsel, led by the Attorney General, Barrister Abiodun Aikomo, that the EFCC’s request, covering several years, was oppressive, unduly burdensome, and unreasonable given the volume of contracts entered into during the period. They further contended that EFCC’s statutory powers are subject to constitutional limits and cannot override constitutional provisions. Investigations, they maintained, must be evidence-driven, and the EFCC cannot embark on roving inquiries without specific allegations.

In defence, EFCC counsel I.G. Ojibor, leading S. Adamu, relied on Section 38 of the EFCC Act (2004), which empowers the Commission to demand and receive information from any person, authority, corporation, or company without hindrance. He argued that this provision entitled the EFCC to conduct a blanket investigation into the state’s finances.

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. His Lordship emphasized that Section 38 of the EFCC Act empowers the Commission to demand information only for the investigation of offences under the Act, not for speculative or roving inquiries.