Oyo court rules EFCC’s phone seizure policy illegal, protects freedom of expression

Oyo court rules EFCC phone seizure policy illegal, says it violates freedom of expression under Nigerian Constitution and African Charter on Human Rights.

Oyo court rules EFCC’s phone seizure policy unconstitutional, declaring that the practice of demanding phones from visitors infringes on the right to freedom of expression.

Also read: Court orders EFCC to facilitate Aisha Achimugu’s release on bail

In a landmark judgement on Monday, Justice Oluwaseuntoluwanimi Ademola-Salami of the Oyo State High Court ruled that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission has no constitutional backing to force visitors to surrender their phones, gadgets, or smartwatches as a condition for entry into its premises.

The case was brought by lawyer Adedeji Falujo, who sued the EFCC after he was denied entry into the commission’s Ibadan office unless he submitted his iPhone, Samsung Flip 3, and Apple smartwatch.

He stated that during the visit, he missed important calls from clients, including one who ended up hiring a different lawyer.

“I asked if there was any law compelling me to drop my phone. They said there was none,” Falujo stated in his affidavit.

“They simply said it was their rule, and without compliance, I would not be allowed in to perform my duty as a lawyer.”

Oyo court rules EFCC policy as violating Section 39 of the Nigerian Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression, and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which guarantees the right to receive and impart information.

Representing Falujo, Boluwatife Sanya argued that the EFCC had no legal grounds to restrict an individual’s use of communication devices, especially in the absence of enabling legislation.

Agreeing with the plaintiff, the court made four key declarations. First, it recognised that using mobile phones to make and receive calls, or to send messages, constitutes a form of expression protected under Nigerian and African human rights laws.

Second, the court ruled that the EFCC has no constitutional authority to demand gadgets from any Nigerian citizen, especially lawyers acting in their professional capacity.

Third, it found that the commission’s action in this case interfered with Falujo’s right to freely communicate, particularly while discharging his duties as a legal representative.

Lastly, the court issued a perpetual injunction restraining the EFCC and its officers from seizing the applicant’s electronic devices in future.

This judgement marks a critical legal victory for advocates of civil liberties and sets a judicial precedent on the rights of individuals within the premises of security and law enforcement agencies.

Oyo court rules EFCC practice unlawful amid wider concerns about the increasing trend among Nigerian security agencies to confiscate mobile phones as a form of control or security screening.

The practice has long been criticised by civil rights groups as intrusive and unjustifiable under Nigerian law.

Speaking after the ruling, Sanya expressed satisfaction with the court’s position. “This is not just a win for Mr Falujo,” he said.

“It is a win for every Nigerian who has ever been forced to choose between access and dignity.”

The ruling also reignites debate over broader human rights compliance among Nigeria’s law enforcement institutions, which are often accused of flouting constitutional protections in the name of internal policy or procedural convenience.

Legal analysts note that unless overturned on appeal, the Oyo State ruling could provide a solid foundation for further legal challenges in other states.

Meanwhile, human rights organisations have urged the EFCC to immediately review its internal policies in line with the ruling and to cease any practice that impinges on constitutional freedoms.

Also read: Alleged N4.8bn fraud : Court adjourns to May 27 as Ibeto challenges EFCC

Oyo court rules EFCC acted outside the bounds of legality, offering Nigerians hope that judicial recourse remains a viable path to defend their rights, even against powerful institutions.

Peculiar Adirika