By Ovat Abeng
An activist and former governorship candidate of 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 rule of law by disregarding Supreme Court decisions against it.
He also described the penchant of the commission for media trial, blackmail and intimidation, as a demonstration of incompetence, dishonesty, deception and lack of integrity.
He levelled these allegations against the EFCC in a press statement electronically circulated to various media organisations on Tuesday.
Read Also: Senate confirms chairman, 11 members of National Assembly Service Commission
Okonkwo who is the validly appointed Liquidator of Ifemelunma and Company Enterprises Nigeria Limited, rhetorically asked 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 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 interpretation of Section 6(b) of the EFCC (Establishment) Act, 2004, without vires, and decided to re-write 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 investigation by 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 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 which has already been construed by the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal said that in such event the trial Court has no option but to follow the construction as it is binding upon the Court.
“That notwithstanding, there is a Suit No. E/921/2021 between Peace Mass Transit Ltd. vs. Chief Ifeanyichukwu Okonkwo. Peace Mass Transit Ltd. was claiming the following reliefs: (a) An Order of the Honourable Court directing or commanding the defendant to pay or refund the sum of N41,000.000.00 (forty-one million naira) forthwith to plaintiff, being the net amount of money that the plaintiff paid to the defendant in or as consideration for the sale or assignment of the totality of the title to interests or rights in and powers over the piece of land known as Plot IN/23, situated at Emene Industrial Layout Extension Enugu in Enugu State to the plaintiff, which has failed completely.
“It is unbelievable that it is the same sum of N41 million that the compromised despicable and inefficient EFCC so-called investigators are weaponising, by claiming that ifeanyichukwu Okonkwo on or about the 23rd day of November, 2015 fraudulently converted the money to his own use. The Commission had alleged that in his capacity as the Liquidator of Ifemelunma and Company Enterprises Limited, on November 23, 2015, he converted to his personal use, the said amount he received from Samuel Maduka Onyishi, meant for the family of the late Joel Ifemelunma Okoye. One may ask who are: Samuel Maduka Onyishi and the family of late Joel Ifemelunma Okoye, are they Contributors, Directors or Creditors.
“Yet at the trial Court on 26/2/2025, Okonkwo informed the Honourable Court that there is a pending appeal against the final decision and the appeal was entered as Appeal No. CA/E/4C/2025, the Appellant’s Brief and Motion for Stay duly filed and served on both the EFCC and the Court Registrar. Curiously, the Honourable Court in spite of the processes pending before the Court of Appeal, refused to stay action and without jurisdiction ordered the arraignment of Okonkwo citing inapplicable case of, Metu vs. F.R.N. (2017) 11 NWLR (PT. 1573) 153. This unbelievable and a tragedy.”
Besides deviating from its original mandate, Okonkwo alleged serious internal corruption within the Commission, political interference and 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 do some serious internal house cleansing to stop the drift, stressing the need to reset the Commission immediately to enable it 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/nullifying 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 said 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 “on 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 emphasised that “no discretion is given to judges of the lower courts to depart from the decision of 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 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, amount 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 necessary by way of appeal, to set aside 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.
