Imagine waking up one morning to see your name trending on social media with the headline: “Declared Wanted by EFCC.” For most people, this would feel like a nightmare; frightening and confusing. Declaring a person wanted is a grave measure, invoked only as a final resort when an individual has wholly failed to honour lawful invitation. Yet very few understand the legal processes that lead to such a declaration, or what steps can be taken afterward.
As a lawyer, I believe it is important to clarify these issues, not only to enlighten the public but also to empower individuals with the knowledge of what the law provides before, during, and after such a declaration.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is Nigeria’s foremost anti-graft agency, with a statutory mandate to investigate and prosecute financial crimes, money laundering, cybercrimes, advance fee fraud (419), contract scams, public sector corruption, and other related offenses. It is a well-structured and well-funded institution with legal powers to trace, arrest, detain, and prosecute suspects. Because of the seriousness of its mandate, the EFCC does not arbitrarily declare individuals wanted. It is usually the outcome of a layered investigative and legal process that often spans several months.
The process is not cast in stone by statute, but deductions can be drawn from practical experience and judicial pronouncements while representing clients under investigation with the EFCC.
Before a Person is Declared Wanted
Letter of Invitation
Before a person is publicly declared wanted, the long process typically begins with a formal letter of invitation addressed to the individual under investigation. This is sent through known contacts such as phone numbers, email addresses, or residential and workplace addresses. The person is expected to honor this invitation voluntarily. The courts have affirmed that the EFCC has the power to invite any person for questioning. See FRN v. Osahon (2006) 5 NWLR (Pt. 973) 361.
Reminders
The Commission will still issue reminders through the same channels. The Commission is usually careful to demonstrate that reasonable efforts were made to reach the individual.
Court Orders and Bank Alerts
When invitations and reminders are ignored, the EFCC may approach the court to freeze the suspect’s bank accounts if they are reasonably suspected to contain the proceeds of crime or to have been used in committing the alleged offense. In some serious circumstances, place arrest alerts on the accounts where the bank will be duty-bound to assist in the arrest of the individual.
Such ex parte freezing orders have been recognized by the courts, provided they are done strictly in compliance with the law, and they remain subject to challenge by the affected person. In Guaranty Trust Bank Plc v. EFCC (2011) LPELR-9339(CA), the Court of Appeal emphasized that EFCC must strictly comply with due process when placing restrictions on accounts.
Warrant of Arrest
If evasion persists, the EFCC can apply for and obtain a warrant of arrest from the court and make attempt to pick the person. This provides the legal foundation for a possible declaration of the individual as wanted. The constitutional requirement of judicial oversight before curtailing liberty is thus preserved; a responsibility placed on security agencies by the court in the case of Shugaba v. Minister of Internal Affairs (1982) 3 NCLR 915.
The EFCC may in some cases secure ex parte court orders to temporarily seize property when it is connected to the offense, block assets, or restrict travel without the suspect being present in court. This often tightens the legal net before any public declaration is made and also afford the person to come out and defend his assets. Where intelligence suggests that a suspect is likely to abscond, the EFCC alerts immigration and airport authorities in advance.
Only after exhausting all investigative approaches will the EFCC proceed to declare the person wanted, which could be through a further order of court or relying on the already obtained warrant of arrest. The Commission is known to be meticulous about this process, even in cases where suspects who initially honored invitations and were granted bail later abscond.
There have been conflicting positions at the Court of Appeal on whether the EFCC must obtain an additional order before declaring a person wanted. However, by practice, the EFCC publishes the wanted notice in at least two national newspapers and on its website. This gives the notice full legal force and ensures widespread awareness. The Court of Appeal has also affirmed the legality of such publications. In Baro v. C.O.P Delta State (2019) LPELR-48611(CA), Adumein, JCA, held:
“I know of no law or statute which prohibits the respondent from publishing any statement… requiring the public to furnish information about the location or whereabouts of a person suspected of having committed a crime; so that the suspect could be heard on the accusation levelled against him by some other person or persons.”
This authority supports the legality of EFCC’s public notices, provided they are issued within the boundaries of due process.
Once declared wanted, all security agencies, including the Police, DSS, Immigration, Customs, and Civil Defense, are notified and mandated to arrest the person on sight. Members of the public are also empowered to report the whereabouts of the suspect or assist in their arrest.
If the suspect is abroad, the EFCC may request an INTERPOL Red Notice, which authorizes foreign law enforcement to arrest and extradite the person to Nigeria, subject to international legal processes. It is therefore important to note that it is the refusal to honour invitations that ultimately leads to a person being declared wanted by EFCC.
What To Do When Declared Wanted
Being declared wanted does not strip the suspect of constitutional rights. There are legal options available to safeguard liberty and reputation. However, any step taken must be guided by the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case, under proper legal advice.
Voluntary Submission
It is strongly advised, under the guidance of a legal practitioner, that voluntary submission to the EFCC be undertaken, especially where the facts are adverse and the individual considers cooperation more pragmatic. With legal representation, the process of securing bail and enforcing fundamental rights can be better safeguarded. This approach may also open the door to alternative resolutions such as plea bargains under Section 270 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015.
Challenge the Declaration in Court
If the facts are not adverse and the person is convinced that the declaration was premature or unlawful, it can be challenged in court. In Ejike Uzoenyi v. EFCC (2018) LPELR-45107(CA), the Court of Appeal stressed that the EFCC cannot operate outside the boundaries of law or violate the constitutional rights of citizens in the guise of fighting corruption. The courts can therefore vacate a wrongful declaration and award damages for reputational harm.
It is therefore important to conclude that being declared wanted by the EFCC is a grave matter and is usually the implication of long refusal to honour lawful invitations. While it is a serious issue, it is not equivalent to guilt. It is simply an enforcement mechanism within an investigative process. The best recourse is proactive legal action, either by voluntary submission under counsel’s guidance or by challenging unlawful actions in court. As the courts have consistently held, the fight against corruption must never come at the expense of the Constitution and the rule of law.
Pelumi Olajengbesi Esq. is a Legal Practitioner and the Managing Partner at Law Corridor. He writes regularly on law, policy, and governance.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and are intended for public enlightenment and academic discussion only.
