EFCC

It is important for me to pause and say here that the powers conferred on the Appellant, i.e. the EFCC to receive complaints and prevent and/or fight the commission of financial crimes in Nigeria pursuant to Section 6(b) of the EFCC Act (Supra) does not extend to the investigation and/or resolution of disputes arising or resulting from simple contracts or civil transactions as in this case.
The EFCC has an inherent duty to scrutinize all complaints that it receives carefully, no matter how carefully crafted by the complaining party, and be bold enough to counsel such complainants to seek appropriate/lawful means to resolve their disputes. Alas! the EFCC is not a debt recovery agency and should refrain from being used as such.

Where the EFCC exercises its power under Section 5 (1)(k) of the EFCC (Establishment) Act, nobody has a right to question whether it obtained the necessary fiat from the Attorney-General of the Federation before embarking on the prosecution.

The Attorney General of the Federation or the EFCC have the power to undertake such criminal prosecutions with the former having the upper hand in taking over the prosecution and continuing or discontinuing with the prosecution by entering a nolle prosequi. See:Pharma Deko Plc v. N.S.I.T.F.M.B (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1241) 431: F. R. N. v. Adewunmi (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1042) 399; Nyame v. F. R. N.(2007) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1193) 344. Nyame v. F. R. N. supra confirmed the powers granted to the EFCC in Section 5(1)(k) of the EFCC Act 2004 to co-ordinate, investigate and prosecute cases under the Criminal Code and the Penal Code Laws. It is not necessary for the EFFC to seek consent from the Bureau of Public Procurement or Attorney General of the Federation before it can proceed to investigate or prosecute the appellant under counts 78 and 79.