Court Of Appeal Upholds Order Restricting EFCC From Investigating Rivers Funds

The Court of Appeal sitting in Port Harcourt has affirmed a 2007 judgment of the Rivers State High Court restraining the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) from investigating the finances and public accounts of the Rivers State Government.....KINDLY READ THE FULL STORY HERE▶

The ruling effectively prevents the EFCC from probing the administration of former Rivers State Governor, Peter Odili, who governed the state between 1999 and 2007.

Delivering judgment on Friday in appeal number CA/PH/622/2008, a three-member panel held that the earlier decision remained valid and enforceable because it was never appealed.

The panel was made up of Justices Ugochukwu Ogakwu, Isah Gafai, and Zainab Abubakar.

Justice Ogakwu stated that the 2007 High Court judgment had become final and binding, noting that no appeal was filed to challenge it.

He added that even if the interpretation of the law was disputed, it could no longer be questioned since it had not been taken up on appeal.

The case originated from a February 16, 2007 ruling of the Rivers State High Court, which held that only the State House of Assembly, the Accountant-General, and the Auditor-General had constitutional authority to scrutinise the state’s finances.

The Court of Appeal further ruled that the EFCC could not rely on its Establishment Act to override a subsisting constitutional interpretation delivered by a competent court.

Reacting to the judgment, former Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, Chidi Odinkalu, warned that the decision could have broader implications for accountability in public finance management.

Writing on X, Odinkalu said other states might now attempt to rely on the ruling.

He added that one possible consequence was that the EFCC could be pushed to focus on minor targets in order to demonstrate activity, while political actors might take advantage of legal protections to evade scrutiny.

Odinkalu also remarked on the unusually fast issuance of the certified true copy of the judgment.

He noted that the ruling was delivered one day earlier and already had a certified copy available, describing it as unusual in a system where such documents often take weeks or months to be released.