An activist and former governorship candidate of the Action Democratic Party, ADP, in Anambra State, Dr. Ifeanyichukwu Okonkwo, has lambasted the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, for drifting away from its original mandate as an anti-graft agency to assume the role of a debt recovery agency.

Okonkwo opined that the EFCC not only lacks faith in democratic ideals but also has no respect for due process and the rule of law by disregarding Supreme Court decisions against it.

He also described the commission’s penchant for media trials, blackmail, and intimidation as a demonstration of incompetence, dishonesty, deception, and lack of integrity.

He leveled these allegations against the EFCC in a press statement made available to DAILY POST on Tuesday.

Okonkwo rhetorically asked about the connection between Section 6(b) of the EFCC Act, 2004, and the one-count charge filed against him by the commission, to wit:

“That you, Ifeanyichukwu Okonkwo, on or about the 23rd day of November 2015, in Enugu, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, fraudulently converted to your own use the sum of Forty-One Million Naira (N41,000,000.00), being money received by you from one Onyishi Maduka Samuel for the family of the late Joel Ifemelunma.”

Citing Section 211(1) of the Nigerian Constitution and five Supreme Court decisions, the activist challenged the competence of the EFCC and the jurisdiction of the High Court of Enugu State to entertain the case.

The Supreme Court cases are Diamond Bank Plc. vs. Opara (2018), EFCC vs. Diamond Bank Plc (2018), Nwaoboshi vs. F.R.N. (2023), Maduagwu vs. F.R.N. (2025), and Iheanacho vs. N.P.F. (2017).

The statement read in part:

“In the case of Diamond Bank vs. Opara (2018), for instance, the Supreme Court, in interpreting Section 6(b) of the EFCC Establishment Act, 2004, held that the powers conferred on the commission to receive complaints and prevent and/or fight financial crimes in Nigeria, pursuant to the aforesaid section of the EFCC Act, did not extend to the investigation and/or resolution of disputes arising or resulting from simple contracts or civil transactions as in this case.

“But at the High Court of Enugu State on 28/11/2024, the learned trial Judge, Justice E.N. Oluedo – J., in her wisdom, disregarded the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 6(b) of the EFCC (Establishment) Act, 2004, without vires, and decided to rewrite the decision thus:

‘And I agree with the submission of the prosecution that the issue that calls for determination in the instant case is whether, in the course of the liquidation of the company, an offence triable by this Honourable Court was revealed to have been allegedly committed after an investigation by the EFCC.’

“What can anybody say to a High Court Judge who elects to disobey the decision of the Supreme Court? There is a duty on a trial Court faced with an enactment such as Section 6(b) of the EFCC Act 2004. Where the Court is faced with scrutinizing an enactment already construed by the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal said that, in such an event, the trial Court has no option but to follow the construction as it is binding upon the Court.”

Besides deviating from its original mandate, Okonkwo alleged serious internal corruption within the commission, political interference, and the absence of proper oversight of its officers and men by the leadership.

He challenged the Chairman of the EFCC, Ola Olukayode, to strengthen his oversight desk and conduct serious internal cleansing to stop the drift, stressing the need to reset the commission immediately to enable it to focus on its original mandate as contained in the EFCC Establishment Act (2004).

Meanwhile, Okonkwo has gone back to court through a motion on notice to set aside/nullify the Court’s entire proceedings/order dated Wednesday, the 26th day of February 2025, in Suit No. E/298C/2019, for being null and void without jurisdiction.

The activist brought the motion before the Court pursuant to Section 6(6)(b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court.

The grounds upon which the application is predicated include that he was never charged for any offence under the EFCC (Establishment) Act, 2004, and therefore, neither Section 40 of the said Act nor the case of Metuh vs. F.R.N. (2017) is applicable in the charge filed against him by the EFCC, pursuant to Section 342 of Cap 30, Criminal Code Law of Enugu State, and punishable under Section 353(L) of the same law (a state law).

According to the defendant/applicant, the entire proceedings/order of the trial Court on February 26, 2025, was not only an affront to the authority of the Court of Appeal but also disregarded the judgment of the Supreme Court in Western Steel Works Ltd. vs. Iron and Steel Workers Union (1986), stating that “a decision of a Court on the question of whether it has jurisdiction in a matter is a final decision since it concludes the rights of the parties on whether or not they can approach the Court for a remedy.”

Relying on the case of African Newspapers Limited vs. Federal Republic of Nigeria, he emphasized that “no discretion is given to judges of the lower courts to depart from the decision of a higher Court in the hierarchy, even where such were erroneous,” but unfortunately, in his own case, Justice Oluedo refused to follow four judgments of the Supreme Court.

Citing the case of Shitta-Bey vs. the Attorney General of the Federation (1998), Okonkwo maintained that the proceeding of the trial Court in Suit No. E/298C/2019 is without jurisdiction, stressing that if jurisdiction—which is like blood in the human body, without which a human being cannot survive—is lacking in the case, the case cannot exist at all.

The applicant, who is challenging the jurisdiction of the Court in the entire proceedings, averred that where a court entertains a matter in which it lacks jurisdiction, the whole exercise, including the proceedings and order, amounts to a nullity.

He insisted that the Court suo moto (on its own motion) has inherent jurisdiction to set aside the order, just as the party or parties affected by the proceedings/order can take necessary steps by motion and, if necessary, by way of appeal, to set aside such a judgment that is invalid on the grounds of being a nullity.

On what he would do if Hon. Justice E.N. Oluedo refuses to set aside the decision of 26/2/2025, he vowed to activate the National Judicial Council option.

Referring to the cases of Achiaka vs. Nduka (2001), Ajiboye vs. Ishola (2006), and Saleh vs. Mungonu (2006), Okonkwo made it clear that the proceedings dated Wednesday, 26th day of February 2025, being a nullity, have no legal validity and cannot confer any right or impose any obligation on anybody, nor can it constitute issue estoppel.

He referred the Court to the case of Ekeh vs. Ogbonda (2006) to see the circumstances under which a court can set aside its judgment or order, adding that an order which can properly be described as a nullity is one which the person affected by it is entitled ex debito justitiae (as a debt of justice) to have set aside.

“As far as the procedure for having it set aside is concerned, the Court, in its inherent jurisdiction, can set aside its own order, and an appeal against the Order is not necessary.

“The entire proceeding/order dated Wednesday, 26th February 2025, in Suit No. E/298C/2019 is invalid in the sense that it was delivered against the Supreme Court’s decision in Western Steel Works Ltd. vs. Iron and Steel Workers Union (1986).

“It is to avoid this ugly and unfortunate situation that the Court of Appeal, in the case Olaseni vs. Olaseni (2010), counseled that…”

Quoting C.B.N. vs. Katto (1994), he noted that time does not run against any party in raising the issue of jurisdiction, stressing that the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any time.

Ex-guber candidate, Okonkwo lambasts EFCC, accuses commission of drifting from mandate