A recent ruling by the Federal High Court in Abuja has restricted the powers of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) in freezing bank accounts.
The court now limits the ICPC’s ability to freeze accounts from one year to just 72 hours. This judgment comes after a lawsuit filed by the Lawyers Network Against Corruption (LNAC), which argued that the ICPC’s broad powers were unconstitutional and unjust.
In his ruling, Justice James Omotosho said the previous provision allowing the ICPC to freeze accounts for up to one year was “totally unreasonable” and an abuse of power. “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” Justice Omotosho stated, noting the risk of the ICPC abusing such authority.
The case dates back to February 21, 2024, when lawyer Mr. Ezenwa Anumnu filed the suit on behalf of the LNAC. The suit contended that the ICPC, led by its Chairman, had been ordering banks and financial institutions to freeze citizens’ accounts without a court order, causing undue hardship for innocent Nigerians.
Justice Omotosho’s ruling questioned the fairness of such unilaterally imposed restrictions. The court found that the ICPC’s actions, though aimed at curbing corruption, violated citizens’ fundamental rights to property and privacy, as enshrined in Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution.
The judgment comes after years of concerns over the ICPC’s methods. The LNAC argued that the indefinite freezing of bank accounts had left many Nigerians in a financial limbo, unable to access their money even without being charged with any crime.
The LNAC sought three key actions:
- A declaration that the ICPC does not have the power to freeze bank accounts without a court order.
- A ruling that Section 45(1) of the ICPC Act is unconstitutional and invalid.
- An injunction to prevent the ICPC from continuing its practice of freezing accounts without judicial oversight.
Justice Omotosho highlighted that Section 44(1) of the Nigerian Constitution guarantees citizens the right to own property, and this extends to their bank accounts. However, he acknowledged that this right is not absolute and can be curtailed in certain cases, particularly when dealing with suspected criminal activity.
The court emphasized the need for a balance between the ICPC’s duty to fight corruption and the protection of individuals’ rights. Justice Omotosho pointed to the constitutional provision of a fair hearing, noting that freezing a person’s bank account without allowing them an opportunity to be heard could result in serious injustice.
While he recognized the importance of empowering enforcement agencies like the ICPC in the fight against corruption, he stressed that such powers must be exercised within the bounds of the law. “The ICPC may direct banks to freeze accounts, but such actions should only last for 72 hours unless extended by a court,” he ruled.
The case centered on Section 45(1) of the ICPC Act, which previously gave the ICPC Chairman the authority to direct banks to freeze accounts indefinitely without needing court approval. However, Justice Omotosho found this provision incompatible with the constitution, which guarantees fair hearing and protection of property.
He acknowledged the legitimate concerns regarding the use of funds in suspected accounts but argued that the freezing of accounts should not lead to indefinite hardship. He warned that a freeze lasting an entire year would have devastating effects on individuals and businesses, with little recourse for the account holders.
The ICPC had argued that the provision was necessary to prevent suspects from moving or using the funds before investigations could be completed. However, the judge pointed out that the freezing order should not last longer than necessary.
Comparing the ICPC’s powers to those of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Justice Omotosho highlighted that while the EFCC could freeze accounts for only 72 hours, the ICPC had been allowed to do so for a full year. This, he argued, was excessive and unjustifiable.
“The intention behind the law was to allow the commission time to conduct investigations, but a year is far too long,” the judge added. “A person’s business or personal life could be ruined in that time, especially if the investigation does not lead to any charge.”
The court’s ruling has major implications for the ICPC’s operations, limiting its power to freeze accounts without court involvement. Going forward, the ICPC must seek court approval if it wishes to extend any freezing orders beyond 72 hours.
Justice Omotosho’s ruling is seen as a significant victory for the protection of citizens’ rights against potential abuses by powerful institutions. The court’s decision reinforces the principle that while fighting corruption is critical, the rights of individuals must not be trampled in the process.
