Former House of Representatives member and lawyer, Kayode Oladele, has criticized the stance of Dr. Olisa Agbakoba (SAN), a former President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), regarding the legal authority of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
Oladele described Agbakoba’s position as “legal sophistry,” dismissing his claims that the EFCC lacks the jurisdiction to interfere in state matters.
Oladele’s remarks were in response to an interview and a letter by Agbakoba, in which the senior advocate argued that the EFCC’s involvement in state affairs was beyond its legal mandate.
Agbakoba had written to the Joint National Assembly Constitution Review Committee, asserting that the anti-graft agency was overreaching its authority by investigating high-profile state officials like former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello, and others, which sparked debates on the agency’s jurisdiction.
READ ALSO: Olise Agbakoba urges new CJN, Kekere-Ekun, to rebuild public trust in judiciary
In a detailed rejoinder, Oladele clarified that the EFCC is empowered by law to investigate and prosecute economic crimes across all levels of government.
“The EFCC is a Nigerian law enforcement agency established to investigate and prosecute economic and financial crimes, including advance fee fraud, money laundering, and the misappropriation of public funds,” he explained.
Oladele dismissed Agbakoba’s views, asserting that they lack legal foundation and contradict settled law. “Mr. Agbakoba’s position is more of legal sophistry rather than legal substance. It does not represent the correct legal position, as it runs contrary to established rulings from superior courts, including Nigeria’s Supreme Court,” he argued.
READ ALSO: Agbakoba advocates constitutional reform, redistribution of power
Citing Nigeria’s model of co-operative federalism, Oladele emphasized that some agencies serve both federal and state governments. He highlighted that the EFCC qualifies as one such agency, with statutory powers to institute criminal proceedings for financial crimes across any Nigerian jurisdiction. Oladele referenced sections 174(1)(b) and 211(1)(b) of the 1999 Constitution, which, he said, provide the EFCC with the authority to act on behalf of both federal and state governments.
“Judicial considerations by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal align with this interpretation, refuting Mr. Agbakoba’s claims,” Oladele noted. He also cited specific provisions of the EFCC Act—sections 6(m), 9(2), and 13(2)—which empower the agency to prosecute financial crimes, further validating the agency’s current actions against state-level officials.
Oladele concluded by stressing that the EFCC’s role as an anti-corruption body remains essential for both federal and state governments in curbing financial crimes, making Agbakoba’s critique legally unsound and unsupported by judicial precedent.