FCT High Court rules anti-graft agency’s “$6 billion fraud” publication was false and defamatory, while EFCC vows to challenge the judgment at the Court of Appeal.
Byline
By A1NEWS International
ABUJA, Nigeria — July 8, 2026
The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), sitting in Maitama, Abuja, has held the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) liable for defaming former Minister of Power, Dr. Olu Agunloye, through an official publication alleging that he was arraigned over a “$6 billion fraud.”
In a judgment that could have significant implications for official public communications by law enforcement agencies, Justice Peter Kekemeke ruled that the publication was false, defamatory and unsupported by the actual criminal charges filed against the former minister.
The court ordered the EFCC to retract the publication, issue a public apology and pay N10 million in damages, while the anti-graft agency immediately announced its intention to appeal the decision.
How the Dispute Began
The suit arose from a publication posted on the EFCC’s official website and its verified X (formerly Twitter) account under the headline:
“EFCC Arraigns Agunloye Over $6 Billion Fraud.”
Agunloye, through his counsel, Chief Adeola Adedipe (SAN), argued that the publication falsely portrayed him as a corrupt public official involved in a multi-billion-dollar fraud scheme.
The former minister maintained that the publication damaged his personal reputation, professional integrity and standing in the eyes of the public.
The case, marked FCT/HC/CV/1199/2024, sought judicial declarations that the publication was defamatory, alongside an order compelling the EFCC to retract the statement, issue an unreserved apology and pay damages.
Although the claimant initially sought N1 billion in general and exemplary damages, the court awarded N10 million.
Court Examines Elements of Defamation
Delivering judgment, Justice Kekemeke outlined the legal requirements for establishing defamation.
According to the court, a claimant must demonstrate that:
- A statement was published in a permanent form;
- The publication referred directly to the claimant; and
- The publication was capable of lowering the claimant’s reputation in the estimation of reasonable members of society.
The judge held that all three conditions had been satisfied in Agunloye’s case.
He observed that the publication remained permanently accessible on the EFCC’s official digital platforms and specifically identified the former minister by name.
Court Finds EFCC’s Headline Misrepresented Criminal Charges
A major issue before the court was whether the EFCC’s description of Agunloye’s criminal prosecution accurately reflected the charges pending against him.
Justice Kekemeke stated that after carefully reviewing the criminal information filed before the Apo Division of the FCT High Court, he found no allegation accusing Agunloye of committing a $6 billion fraud.
Instead, the judge concluded that the EFCC’s headline introduced allegations that did not exist in the criminal charge.
According to the court, the word “fraud” appeared nowhere in the exhibits tendered during the proceedings.
The court described the headline as “sensational” and held that it failed to present a fair representation of the actual court proceedings.
Witness Testimony Strengthens Claim
During the hearing, the EFCC called Assistant Commissioner of Police Umar Hussain Babangida as its sole witness.
Justice Kekemeke noted that although the witness initially denied knowledge of the disputed publication, he later acknowledged during cross-examination that the publication originated from the Commission’s Media Department.
The court considered this admission significant in establishing the EFCC’s responsibility for the publication.
Court Rejects EFCC’s Defence
The judge clarified that Agunloye’s suit was not an attempt to prevent the EFCC from performing its statutory mandate of investigating economic and financial crimes.
Rather, the issue before the court was whether the Commission exceeded acceptable limits by publishing statements that were inaccurate and capable of damaging an individual’s reputation.
Justice Kekemeke held that the EFCC failed to establish the truth of the publication—one of the recognised legal defences available in defamation actions.
He further ruled that the claimant successfully established malice, a finding that strengthened Agunloye’s claim.
Court Orders Retraction and Public Apology
Having found the publication defamatory, the court granted several reliefs in favour of the former minister.
The court ordered the EFCC to:
- Retract the publication from its official platforms;
- Publish an unreserved public apology on its official website;
- Publish the apology in two national newspapers;
- Refrain permanently from making similar defamatory publications against Agunloye; and
- Pay N10 million as damages.
The court also issued a perpetual injunction restraining the Commission from further defamatory publications against the former minister.
EFCC Announces Appeal
Reacting shortly after the judgment, counsel to the EFCC, Dr. Wahab Shittu (SAN), disclosed that the Commission would challenge the ruling before the Court of Appeal.
According to him, the defamation suit ought not to have been determined while the underlying criminal proceedings against Agunloye remain pending.
He argued that the civil action was premature because the criminal case had not yet reached final judgment.
“Though the court has delivered its judgment, we are definitely going to appeal the court’s decision,” he said.
Implications for Public Institutions
Legal analysts say the judgment highlights the responsibility of public institutions to ensure that official statements accurately reflect ongoing judicial proceedings.
The decision also reinforces the principle that criminal investigations and prosecutions do not automatically justify publications that introduce allegations not contained in formal court processes.
Observers note that the outcome of the EFCC’s appeal could further clarify the legal boundaries governing official communications by law enforcement agencies.
The judgment represents a significant legal setback for the EFCC in its public communications strategy, with the High Court concluding that its publication concerning Dr. Olu Agunloye crossed the line from official reporting into actionable defamation.
While the Commission has pledged to challenge the decision on appeal, the ruling serves as a reminder that investigative agencies, like all public institutions, remain subject to the law of defamation and the constitutional protection of individual reputation.
The appeal process is expected to determine whether the High Court’s findings will stand or be reconsidered by a higher court.
Leave a Reply