Court Slams N3 Million Fine on EFCC for Unlawfully Declaring Emefiele’s Wife Wanted

•Orders anti-graft agency to tender public apology, delist name, photograph from wanted persons’ list

Alex Enumah in Abuja

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has come under the sledgehammer of a Federal High Court in Lagos, for its unlawful declaration of Mrs. Margaret Emefiele, wife of immediate past governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Mr. Godwin Emefiele, as a wanted person.

The court which nullified the conduct of the anti-graft agency subsequently ordered the commission as well as its chairman to pay the sum of N3 million as damages to the complainant.

The court predicated its decision on the grounds that the commission cannot on its own without the order of a court of competent jurisdiction declare any person as wanted.

Mrs. Emefiele had on February 14, 2024, instituted a fundamental rights enforcement suit against the EFCC and its chairman, for publishing her name and photograph in their website as a “wanted person”.

In the suit marked: FHC/L/CS/262/2024, the applicant submitted that the publication of her name and photograph on the website of the EFCC as “Wanted” without any formal invitation extended to her and without any valid charge and or a court order to the effect amounts to a violation of her fundamental right to the dignity of her person.

It also infringed her rights to personal liberty, freedom of movement and right to security as guaranteed under Sections 34,35, and 41 of the 199 Constitution and Articles 5,6, and 12 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ratification and enforcement) Act (Cap A9) Vol 1 Law of the Federation of Nigeria, 2011.

The applicant in arguing her case informed the court that she is a law-abiding citizen of Nigeria who has never been invited by the respondents in connection with any allegation.

She further held that, “That there is no criminal charge filed against her that is pending before any competent courts of law in Nigeria. That her attention was drawn to certain publications of the respondents on its websites wherein she, and other 3 persons were declared wanted.

“That as at 17.06pm on February 11, 2024, the X handle (formerly Tweeter) which has over 2.1 million followers, the said publication has been viewed by over 98,800 persons and reposted 455 times, that the publication generated a lot of concerns and have caused several persons to call her and reach out to her.

“That the publication of the second respondent’s website declaring her wanted without any invitation, charge or court order gave the impression that she was evading earlier invitation from the law.

“That the said publication by the second respondents was published on several on line newspaper platforms and have generated negative comments against her person, portraying her as a person evading justice”.

But the EFCC in its response argued that all efforts to contact Mrs. Emefiele to respond to corruption and money laundering case they were investigating at the CBN, under her husband, were unsuccessful.

In addition, the commission claimed that their action of publishing Mrs. Emefiele as a wanted person was based on the orders of court, directing it to arrest the applicant and produce her in court.

Delivering judgement in the suit on June 28, trial judge, Justice D. I. Dipeolu, however agreed with the applicant that the publication of her name and photograph in the website of the EFCC without an order of court violated her rights as guaranteed by the constitution.

“Flowing from the provision of Section 41 above, it is only the court and not the respondents or any other agency that has the power to publish summons in writing where a person who is alleged to have committed a crime absconded or concealed him or herself so that a warrant can be executed against him or her.

“The respondents act of declaring the applicant wanted on their website is a flagrant disobedience of the clear provisions of the administration of the criminal justice Act having subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of court by applying, for a warrant to arrest and detain the applicant”, Justice Dipeolu held.

Besides, the court observed that the respondent’s line of argument that it resorted to declaring the applicant wanted because the applicant was evading arrest or refusing invitation is unfounded in law.

“The respondents appear to be usurping the powers of the court to publish a public summons further to the provisions of section 41 of the ACIL.

“There is nothing in Section 41 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 that made mention of declaring someone wanted. The provision only talks about a public summons, which shall be published in a newspaper that enjoys wide circulation or circulated in any other medium as may be appropriate requiring the person to appear at a specific place and time.

“The respondents having subjected themselves to the court by applying for and obtaining a Warrant to Arrest and Detain the Applicant, the respondents ought to resort back to court where it obtained the arrest warrant to intimate or pray the court to exercise its powers under section 41 of Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 having approached the court in the first place to obtain a warrant to arrest and detain the applicant who is evading arrest despite their efforts”, the judge added.

On the issue of compensation for damages, the court held that the applicant through exhibits tendered was able to prove that she has suffered damages as a result of the conduct of the anti-graft agency.