By Stephen Simon
The Federal Capital Territory High Court in Abuja has awarded ₦10 million in damages against the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for defaming former Minister of Power and Steel, Dr. Olu Agunloye, over a publication linked to his ongoing prosecution. The court held that the anti-graft agency’s publication was defamatory and unjustified.
Justice Peter Kekemeke ruled that the EFCC failed to establish the truth of the publication, which described Agunloye as being involved in a “$6 billion fraud.” The judge held that the publication went beyond the facts contained in the criminal charge before the court and was capable of lowering the former minister’s reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society.
The court consequently ordered the EFCC to pay ₦10 million as general damages to Agunloye, stressing that public institutions must exercise caution in the manner they communicate criminal allegations against individuals, particularly where such matters are still pending before the courts.
Agunloye had approached the court after the EFCC published materials on its official platforms suggesting that he was standing trial for a “$6 billion fraud.” He argued that the publication was false, misleading and had seriously damaged his reputation both within and outside Nigeria.
Legal practitioners say the judgment serves as a reminder that law enforcement agencies have a duty to balance public information with the constitutional rights of suspects, including the right to dignity and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty by a competent court.
The ruling has also generated debate within legal circles on the growing use of social media by anti-corruption agencies to publicise criminal proceedings. While supporters argue that such publicity promotes transparency, critics insist that it sometimes creates the impression that suspects have already been convicted before trial.
Although the judgment does not affect the substantive criminal proceedings involving Agunloye, analysts believe it reinforces the principle that government agencies can be held accountable for publications that exceed the facts before the court. They note that the decision could influence how investigative and prosecuting agencies communicate with the public in future cases.
