Reported by: Oahimire Omone Precious | Edited by: Oravbiere Osayomore Promise.
The Court of Appeal sitting in Port Harcourt has upheld a 2007 Rivers State High Court judgment restraining the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) from investigating the finances and public accounts of the Rivers State Government, a ruling that effectively blocks the anti‑graft agency from probing former Governor Peter Odili, who governed the oil‑rich state between 1999 and 2007.
Delivering judgment on Friday, May 16, 2026, in an appeal marked CA/PH/622/2008, a three‑member panel comprising Justices Ugochukwu Ogakwu, Isah Gafai and Zainab Abubakar held that the 2007 decision remained valid and binding because it was never challenged on appeal. Justice Ogakwu, who read the lead judgment, stated that the constitutional interpretation made in the earlier ruling, whether right or wrong, is accepted as correct and cannot be argued against since it was not challenged on appeal. “There was no appeal against the said judgment of the High Court of Rivers State. The judgment remains conclusive and binding, and the constitutional interpretation made therein, whether right or wrong, is accepted as correct and cannot be argued against since it was not challenged on appeal,” Ogakwu held.
The dispute originated from a February 16, 2007 judgment of the Rivers State High Court, which held that only the Rivers State House of Assembly, the Accountant‑General and the Auditor‑General of the state possess constitutional powers to scrutinise and exercise control over the state’s finances and public records. The lower court relied on Sections 120, 121, 122, 124, 125 and 128 of the 1999 Constitution in reaching its decision, ruling that those powers could not be shared with any other person, institution or agency, and consequently restrained the EFCC from investigating the state’s accounts.
The appellate court also ruled that the EFCC could not rely on provisions of its Establishment Act to override a subsisting constitutional interpretation by a competent court, since the Constitution takes precedence over legislation. The EFCC had contested the injunction since 2008, but the order effectively shielded the former governor from any scrutiny by the Commission for nearly two decades. In 2018, the Court of Appeal granted the EFCC leave to challenge the Federal High Court judgment, prompting the Attorney General of Rivers State and the Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly to approach the Supreme Court in separate appeals seeking to overturn the appellate court’s ruling. However, in March 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals after the appellants withdrew them.
Reacting to the development, a former chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, Chidi Odinkalu, warned that the decision could have far‑reaching implications for the EFCC. In a post on X, he wrote, “Other states will claim the benefit of this decision. One consequence could be that the EFCC will double down on harassing students and hair salons in order to show activity. The politicians, meanwhile, can double down on plunder under the cover of judicial protection”. He also noted the unusual speed with which a certified true copy of the judgment became available. “By the way, in case you have not noticed, the judgment was issued yesterday, and there is already a certified copy. That is a small miracle in a country where judgments can take months to break cover,” Odinkalu added.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters News | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments