EFCC ACCUSED OF USING DETENTION TO RECOVER PRIVATE DEBTS AS NIGERIANS ALLEGEDLY SPEND UP TO 72 DAYS IN CUSTODY

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has come under scrutiny following allegations that some of its officers are being used to pursue private debts and settle civil and commercial disputes, with several Nigerians reportedly spending weeks in detention without being formally arraigned before a court.

Investigations into complaints from individuals who said they were detained at the EFCC headquarters in Abuja indicate that some suspects allegedly spent between 40 and 72 days in custody. The allegations have raised concerns over the manner in which the anti-corruption agency handles cases involving financial disputes, particularly where the underlying disagreements may involve private debts or contractual obligations.

Among those reportedly affected are Precious Momo, who was said to have spent 72 days in detention; Stephen Angel, 62 days; John Ugbo, 60 days and still counting; Mahmoud Abubakar, 65 days and still counting; Sadiq Babalola, 45 days and still counting; Oshori Alfred, 60 days and still counting; and Aminu Ahmed, 48 days and still counting.

The allegations centre on claims that some individuals are arrested following petitions by private persons who allege that money is owed to them. According to people who described their experiences, rather than allowing such disputes to be resolved through civil litigation or arbitration, EFCC intervention allegedly results in the detention of the person accused of owing the money.

One of the individuals who described his experience said he was detained at the EFCC headquarters in Abuja for 25 days over what he described as a civil dispute relating to visa processing. He alleged that more than 85 people were being held in the cell where he was detained.

According to the source, several people in the facility had allegedly not been taken before a court during their detention. He claimed that some detainees were being held while negotiations were taking place over alleged debts.

The source further alleged that individuals were sometimes brought to the commission after someone claimed they owed money, with detention allegedly being used as pressure to make them settle the disputed amounts.

Another alleged victim described a separate case in which he reportedly spent 40 days in EFCC custody following a dispute involving a long-standing business partner.

The individual said that when EFCC operatives came to his office to make an arrest, he initially believed the matter involved a serious financial crime such as fraud or money laundering. He said he was surprised when he was informed that the matter concerned debt recovery.

He alleged that he remained in detention for 40 days without being taken before a court and claimed that the process was primarily aimed at pressuring him to pay money that the petitioner alleged he owed.

The allegations have raised broader questions about the boundaries of the EFCC’s investigative powers and whether the commission should intervene in disputes that are essentially civil in nature.

Critics of the alleged practice argue that private debt recovery ordinarily belongs within the civil justice system, where parties can pursue claims through the courts or agreed dispute-resolution mechanisms. They contend that the use of arrest or prolonged detention as leverage in such circumstances could raise serious concerns about due process and fundamental rights.

However, the EFCC has strongly rejected the allegation that it operates as a debt recovery agency.

EFCC spokesperson Dele Oyewale said the commission operates within its statutory mandate and denied that its officers are used to recover private debts.

Oyewale said the individuals mentioned in the allegations were connected to different cases involving alleged economic and financial crimes and had been offered administrative bail. According to him, some of the suspects remained in custody because they had not fulfilled the conditions attached to their bail.

The EFCC spokesperson also disputed claims that suspects could be held indefinitely without judicial authorisation. He said the commission could not keep a suspect beyond the statutory 48-hour period without obtaining a remand order.

He explained that suspects could be placed on administrative bail but might remain in custody if they were unable to satisfy the conditions attached to their release. He stressed that such circumstances should not automatically be interpreted as the EFCC keeping individuals in detention.

Oyewale also rejected the claim that EFCC officers were being deployed to recover debts on behalf of private individuals, describing the commission as a professional agency whose rules of engagement do not permit such conduct.

The conflicting accounts have therefore placed renewed attention on the treatment of suspects held during EFCC investigations, particularly where the cases involve financial disputes between private individuals or businesses.

While individuals who spoke about their experiences alleged that detention was used to pressure them into settling disputed debts, the EFCC maintains that the cases involve alleged economic and financial crimes and that the individuals concerned were subject to bail conditions or valid remand orders.

The allegations also highlight the importance of transparency around the legal status of suspects who remain in custody for extended periods, including whether they have been arraigned, whether remand orders were obtained and the specific conditions attached to their release.

For the individuals who claim to have spent several weeks in detention, the central concern remains whether their prolonged custody was connected to genuine criminal investigations or whether the EFCC was being used as leverage in disputes that should have been resolved through civil legal channels.

The EFCC, meanwhile, has maintained that it does not operate outside its mandate and has rejected suggestions that its officers are involved in private debt collection.

Street News Reporters will continue to monitor developments surrounding the allegations and any further response from the EFCC or affected individuals.