The Oyo State High Court has ruled that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC)?s policy of seizing visitors? phones and gadgets before granting them entry into its offices is illegal.

On Monday, Justice Oluwaseuntoluwanimi Ademola-Salami delivered judgement against the anti-graft agency after Adedeji Falujo, a lawyer, filed a suit challenging the EFCC for forcing him to submit his device, thereby costing him access to people who called him during the time he spent inside one of the agency?s offices.

The court ruled that the EFCC?s action violates the right to freedom of expression, specifically the right to receive and impart information as enshrined in Section 39 of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples? Rights.

Pleading his case, Falujo narrated to the court that he visited the EFCC?s Ibadan office to represent his client but was forced to surrender his iPhone, Samsung Flip 3, and Apple wristwatch without any legal basis before being allowed to enter.

?I asked if there was any law compelling me to drop my phone. They said there was none,? Falujo deposed in his affidavit. ?They simply said it was their rule, and without compliance, I would not be allowed in to perform my duty as a lawyer.?

Unfortunately, he missed critical calls during the time his gadgets were in their custody, including one from a client who was unable to reach him and then hired another lawyer.

Boluwatife J. Sanya, Falujo?s lawyer, told the court that the use of telephones is a means of expression to impart ideas and receive information, and that before the EFCC could restrict such use, there must have been a law allowing them to do so. The court, agreeing with Sanya in the judgement, granted several reliefs against the defence.

The ruling read, ?(i) A declaration that the use of telephones to communicate, i.e., make or receive calls and send or receive short messages, is an act of expression, particularly to receive, impart ideas and pass information guaranteed in section 39(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples? Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Cap A9) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

?(ii) A declaration that the respondents lack constitutional grounds and/or power under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) to restrain and restrict Nigerian citizens, particularly the applicant, from mandatorily submitting electronic gadgets, phones, smart watches and other related devices before being granted access into the 1st respondent?s office.

?(iii) A declaration that the mandatory collection of the Applicant?s telephone; iPhone 12 mini and Samsung flip 3 as a pre-condition to access the office of the 1st Respondent in Ibadan by the 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents thereby not allowing the applicant to communicate with his office secretary, a colleague; Joseph Ugochukwu Esq. and receive calls while he was in the office of the 1st respondent constitutes an interference with the applicant?s right to freedom of expression particularly the right to receive, impart ideas, and pass information guaranteed under section 39(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples? Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Cap A9) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

?(iv) Perpetual injunction restraining the respondents, their officers, agents and/or representatives from the collection of phones and smart wristwatch from the applicant before he accesses the 1st respondent?s office?.

The practice of law enforcement officers demanding that visitors submit their phones to them before gaining entry, is as common across security agencies in Nigeria. (FIJ)

Update news