Human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Femi Falana, has said the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has the legal authority to restrict the bank accounts of federal, state and local governments where there are suspicions of financial crimes.
Falana, however, said the anti-graft agency must obtain a court order if it intends to maintain the restriction beyond the initial 72-hour period allowed by law.
His comments followed the controversy surrounding the EFCC’s restriction of some accounts belonging to the Osun State Government. According to reports, Falana maintained that the commission acted within its statutory powers when it placed the accounts under a Post No Debit (PND) restriction.
He explained that the EFCC can initially place a stop order on an account suspected to be connected with a crime for a period not exceeding 72 hours without first obtaining a court order.
After that period, however, the commission must approach the appropriate court for judicial authorisation if it wishes to continue restricting the account.
The position is consistent with provisions cited in Nigerian case law on the operation of Post No Debit restrictions. Section 6(5)(b) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act provides for a stop order of not more than 72 hours where an account or transaction is suspected to be involved in a crime. Where the origin of funds cannot be established within that period, the law provides for an application to the Federal High Court for an order to block the funds or account.
The Court of Appeal, in EFCC v. Attorney-General of Benue State & Ors, also considered the issue, holding that the commission could place a stop order or freeze an account suspected to be involved in financial crime for up to 72 hours without a court order. Beyond that period, a court order is required to extend the restriction.
Falana’s interpretation therefore distinguishes between the EFCC’s initial power to restrict an account during an investigation and its authority to sustain such a restriction beyond the statutory period.
The lawyer’s position comes amid renewed scrutiny of the EFCC’s powers following its action involving Osun State government accounts.
The controversy has also highlighted the broader legal question of how far anti-corruption agencies can go in restricting public funds while investigations are ongoing, particularly where such actions affect the ability of a state government to conduct its affairs.
Falana’s comments suggest that while the EFCC is not barred from investigating or temporarily restricting government accounts, any continued restriction must be backed by judicial authority as required by law.
