A Federal High Court sitting in Ibadan has restrained the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) from proceeding with its proposed investigation into the finances of the Oyo State Government, ruling that the exercise was speculative and amounted to a "fishing expedition."

Delivering judgment on Wednesday in Suit No. FHC/IB/CS/61/2025, Justice Nkeonye Maha held that while the EFCC possesses statutory powers to investigate financial crimes, those powers must be exercised within the bounds of the Constitution and the rule of law

The court specifically faulted the Commission's letter dated June 2, 2025, which sought extensive financial records from the Oyo State Government without identifying any specific allegations or suspects.

"The EFCC's proposed investigation into Oyo State's finances, particularly the demands contained in its letter of June 2, 2025, was speculative and amounted to a fishing expedition," Justice Maha ruled.

The judge further held that the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs, including the right to fair hearing, could not be infringed under the guise of conducting investigations

The Oyo State Government had approached the court after receiving a letter addressed to the state's Accountant-General requesting copies of all contracts executed by the government, as well as details of payments made to contractors from 2021 to the date of the request.

According to the state government, it had responded by asking the anti-graft agency to identify the specific contractors or companies under investigation so that the relevant documents could be provided.

However, following the EFCC's failure to clarify the scope of its investigation, the state instituted legal action.

The plaintiffs—the Governor of Oyo State, the Attorney-General and the Accountant-General—through their counsel, Attorney-General Abiodun Aikomo, argued that the Commission's sweeping request was excessive, unreasonable and unsupported by any identifiable allegation of wrongdoing

They maintained that the EFCC's investigative powers must be exercised on the basis of credible evidence and specific offences, rather than broad searches aimed at uncovering possible infractions.

The EFCC, represented by counsel I.G. Ojibor, alongside S. Adamu, relied on Section 38 of the EFCC (Establishment) Act, 2004, contending that the provision empowers the Commission to request information from individuals, public authorities, companies and other entities during investigations.

The anti-graft agency argued that the law authorised it to undertake a broad investigation into the state's finances.

Justice Maha, however, rejected the argument and set aside the Commission's June 2, 2025 letter.

"Section 38 of the EFCC Act empowers the Commission to demand information only for the investigation of offences under the Act, not for speculative or roving inquiries," the judge held.

The court consequently restrained the EFCC from proceeding with the proposed investigation based on the disputed letter, stressing that the Commission cannot embark on indiscriminate requests for information without linking them to specific allegations of criminal conduct.

The ruling reinforces the principle that while anti-corruption agencies possess wide investigative powers, such authority must be exercised within constitutional limits and cannot be used to conduct broad, unspecified inquiries.