Appeal Court upholds order restricting EFCC probe of Rivers finances

The appellate court also ruled that the EFCC could not rely on provisions of its Establishment Act to override a subsisting constitutional interpretation by a competent court.

The Court of Appeal in Port Harcourt has upheld a 2007 Rivers State High Court judgement restraining the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) from investigating the finances and public accounts of the Rivers State Government.

In a judgement delivered on Friday in an appeal marked: CA/PH/622/2008, a three-member panel of the appellate court held that the earlier decision remains valid and binding because it was never challenged on appeal.

The panel, made up of Justices Ugochukwu Ogakwu, Isah Gafai and Zainab Abubakar, ruled in the appeal filed by the EFCC against the Attorney General of Rivers State, the Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly, the Rivers State House of Assembly, its Clerk and former Rivers Governor Peter Odili.

Reading the lead judgement, Mr Ogakwu held that the anti-graft agency could not disregard the 2007 ruling nearly two decades after it was delivered.

“There was no appeal against the said judgement of the High Court of Rivers State. The judgment remains conclusive and binding, and the constitutional interpretation made therein, whether right or wrong, is accepted as correct and cannot be argued against since it was not challenged on appeal,” the judge declared, according to a report by the Whistler Newspaper.

The dispute originated from a judgement delivered on 16 February 2007 by the Rivers State High Court, which held that only the Rivers State House of Assembly, the Accountant-General and the Auditor-General of the state possess constitutional powers to scrutinise and exercise control over the state’s finances and public records.

The lower court relied on Sections 120, 121, 122, 124, 125 and 128 of the 1999 Constitution in reaching its decision.

It ruled that those powers could not be shared with any other person, institution or agency, and consequently restrained the EFCC from investigating the state’s accounts.

The case is linked to a long-running legal battle over efforts by the EFCC to investigate the administration of Mr Odili, who governed Rivers State between 1999 and 2007.

Mr Odili had secured a perpetual injunction from the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt in 2007, barring the EFCC from investigating, arresting or prosecuting him, and also preventing the commission from examining the finances of the Rivers State Government during his tenure.

Although the EFCC had challenged the injunction since 2008, the order effectively shielded the former governor from investigation by the anti-graft agency for nearly two decades.

In 2018, the Court of Appeal granted the EFCC leave to challenge the Federal High Court judgement. That decision prompted the Attorney General of Rivers State and the Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly to approach the Supreme Court in separate appeals seeking to overturn the appellate court’s ruling.

However, in March 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals after the appellants withdrew them.

A five-member panel led by Justice John Okoro advised the parties to return to the Court of Appeal for the substantive matter to be heard.

The dismissal was widely seen as clearing the way for the EFCC to pursue its challenge against the injunction protecting Mr Odili from investigation.

However, the Court of Appeal held in Friday’s judgement that the 2007 Rivers State High Court decision remains subsisting and binding because it was never directly appealed.

The appellate court also ruled that the EFCC could not rely on provisions of its Establishment Act to override a subsisting constitutional interpretation by a competent court, stressing that the Constitution takes precedence over any other legislation.

When contacted by PREMIUM TIMES on Sunday for a reaction to the judgement and its implications for the commission’s investigative powers, the EFCC spokesperson, Dele Oyewale, declined to comment.

Reaction

Reacting to the judgement, former Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, Chidi Odinkalu, on Saturday, said the decision could have wider implications for the EFCC’s operations across the country.

“Other states will claim the benefit of this decision,” Mr Odinkalu wrote on X.

“One consequence could be that the EFCC will double down on harassing students and hair salons in order to show activity. The politicians meanwhile can double down on plunder under the cover of judicial protection.”

He also noted the speed with which a certified true copy of the judgement became available.

“By the way, in case you have not noticed, the judgement was issued yesterday and there is already a certified copy. That is a small miracle in a country where judgements can take months to break cover,” he added.