04/02/2026
Adedeji Austine Falujo V Economic and Financial Crimes Commission & Ors (Suit No: M/32/2024)
Is it lawful to drop one’s mobile phones and digital gadget at the security post before accessing security agencies offices in Nigeria? The case between Adedeji Austine Falujo v EFCC sets a distinct tone for arbitrary abuse of power by security agencies at their offices, detention centers and facilities across the country.
The Applicant, a legal practitioner, visited the Ibadan office of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on November 20 2023, in the course of representing a client. Upon arrival, he was informed by EFCC officers that he cannot gain access to the premises unless he surrenders his mobile phone and smartwatch. When he inquired about the legal basis, he was told that there was no law backing up the restriction and that it was just an internal decision of the Commission. Due to the urgency of seeing his client, the Applicant complied with EFCC’s demand, albeit under protest. It was the Applicant’s case that the restriction prevented him from receiving important calls and messages while within EFCC premises.
Aggrieved, the Applicant commenced an action at the High Court of Oyo State claiming, inter alia, that the compulsory collection of his mobile devices as a pre-condition to access EFCC office violated his constitutionally guaranteed right to receive, impact idea and pass information under Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution. It was the contention of the Applicant that the action of EFCC in collecting his phones as a precondition for gaining entry to see his client was not supported by any living law in Nigeria.
In response, the EFCC argued that fundamental rights are not absolute and can be derogated from on the basis of “public safety, morality, welfare of person and prevention of disorder and crime”. The Respondent also argued that the reliefs sought by the Applicant are not cognizable under the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules 2009. Quite strangely, the Respondent also relied on Section 24(1) of the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 in maintaining that it possessed the authority to regulate the use of electronic devices within its premises in order to prevent security breaches and unauthorised dissemination of information.
In a well-considered judgment, the court held that the compulsory submission of electronic devices at the EFCC Office constituted a breach of the Applicant’s right to freedom of expression. The court reasoned that the word “expression” is not limited to speaking, it includes the medium to speak. The court held that “the only circumstances when the 1st Respondent and its officers can seize the phones (or other personal effects) of a citizen is after the arrest, issuance of search warrant or investigation of a citizen has begun. These not being the case, I hold that policy of asking the Applicant or any other citizen of this country to surrender their means of communication which is a phone, or any other communication device as unlawful and unconstitutional interference”.
This judgment reinforces the position that security agencies must operate within the confines of the law and the practice of seizing phones at entrances of their facilities is wrongful and unlawful.
