The EFCC has the power to cause investigation to be conducted as to whether any person, corporate body or organization has committed any offence under its Act or other law relating to economic and financial crimes. It also has the power to cause investigations to be conducted into the properties of any person if it appears to the commission that the person’s lifestyle and extent of the properties are not justified by his source of income.
            The establishment of the EFCC was due to the drastic rate of financial crimes and other related crimes in Nigeria. Hence, since the establishment of the commission, the rate or crime with respect to money laundering has drastically come to a reduction.
For example, In September 2006 under the leadership of Nuhu Ribadu as its chairman, the commission had 31 out the 36 states governors under investigation for corruption.
            The Agency has as well addressed financial corruption by prosecuting and convicting a number of high profile corrupt individuals ranging from Nigerians former chief law enforcement officer to several bank chief executives. The agency has as well tried its best to curtail the rate of cyber crimes which was in vogue before the establishments of the commission. The commission in the perfection of its work has made many, investigations, arrest and conviction of high profile criminals who indulge in all manners of financial crimes.
            In recent years, it has become a common norm in the EFCC to first begin a media campaign against an individual, governor or politician who either has lost through the ballot or fallen out of favour with the power in the Aso – Rock. The bold assertion is seen from the fact that since the inception of the EFCC, coupled with almost all the cases of prosecution pursued, the public has often been treated with a culture of arraigning suspects in court first and later seeking adjournment to enable it conclude investigation with an array of amendments of pleadings filed in several courts, the EFCC stops at nothing to further ensure name calling, request for the transfer of case files, count shopping and all forms of merry – go – rounding.
            Perhaps, the most egregious EFCC failure came in roll, when it was revealed that massive theft had drained the fuel subsidy scheme of at least six million dollars more than 20% of Nigerian’s budget yearly. With the bill for the fuel subsidy running wildly over budget without legislative oversight, Senator Abubakar Bukola Soraki and Senate President David Mark initiated an investigation. The list of importers allegedly involved in the multi – billion dollar scam included the names of many prominent Nigerians, including some government officials.
The few arrests made by the commission gave rise to the familiar charade: the culprits were brought in for questioning but released promptly on bail and after endless delays in the courts; their bails were allowed to go cold. In November 2012, EFCC head Ibrahim Lamorde to the Senate complained to the Senate the financial and political clout of accused was compromising the legal process. As of yet, not one conviction had been made.

The EFCC Act is an Act mandates the EFCC to combat financial and economic crimes. The commission is empowered to prevent investigate, prosecute & penalize economic and financial crimes and is charged with the responsibility of enforcing the praising of other laws & regulating relating to economic & financial crimes, including:
Economic & Financial Crimes Commission Establishment Act (2004)
The Money Laundering Act 1995
The Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2004
The advance fee Fraud and other Fraud Related offences Act 1995  
The Failed Banks (Recovery of Debts) and Financial Malpractices in Bank Act 1994
            In addition, the EFCC will be the key agency of government responsible for fighting terrorism.
S.1       Provides for its establishment
S.2       composition of the commission
S.1 of the EFCC Act LFN (2004) provides for the establishment of the commission. It has juristic personality by virtue of S.1(2) of the Act.
S.2 of the Act provides for the composition of the commission.
            The tenure of office of the members is prescribed under S.3 (1). Where a vacancy occurs, in the membership of the commission, it shall be filled by an appointment of a successor to complete the term of the predecessor.
Functions of the commission are as specified in part II of the Act.
S.6 provides for its function whereas the powers assigned to the commission derive its relevance from S.7.

            Offences created under this Act includes, offences relating to financial malpractices. This offence is entrenches under S.14 of the Act.
S.15 Provides for offences in relation to terrorism
S.16 Provides for offences relating to false information 
            The Act further provides for penalties accompanying these offences. They are provided for under S.18 of the Act.
S.32 Provides for offence in relation to forfeiture order.
The Jurisdiction & Special powers of Curt are provides for under S.19.
S.20 Provides for forfeiture of the property or process obtained for the property which is an object of the offences to the federal government.
S.21 also provides for same.
S.22 Provides for forfeiture of foreign assets
S.24 also provides for forfeiture of real or personal property which a person obtained directly as a result of the violating of this Act.
S.25 Provides for forfeiture of all means conveyance used in transporting or concealment of the subject financial or economic crime.

This provides for forfeiture of Assets of persons arrested for offences under this Act.
S.27 Provides for disclosure of assets and properties by an arrested person etc.
S.28 & S.29 Provide for forfeiture of assets.
            Final order is made by a curt on conviction of a suspect on the application of the commission or any authorize officer.
S.31 Provides for the final disposal of the forfeited property.
S.33 Provides for consequences of acquittal in respect of assets & properties. The curt makes an order of revocation of an in term order on acquittal of the accused.
S.34 Provides for freezing order on bakes or other financial institutions.
Immunities of an officer of the commission when investigating or prosecuting a case under this Act is provided for under S.41 
Share on Google Plus


The publications and/or documents on this website are provided for general information purposes only. Your use of any of these sample documents is subjected to your own decision NB: Join our Social Media Network on Google Plus | Facebook | Twitter | Linkedin