Court Stops EFCC From Mandatory Seizure Of Visitors’ Phones At Office Gates

The Oyo State High Court has barred the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) from seizing visitors’ phones and gadgets before granting them entry into its offices nationwide.

Delivering judgment on Monday in a fundamental rights application find by Adedeji Austine Falujo, a legal practitioner, the presiding judge, Justice Oluwaseun Toluwanimi Ademola-Salami, declared that the EFCC’s policy of seizing visitors’ phones and gadgets before granting them entry into its offices is unconstitutional.

The court held that EFCC’s action violate 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.

The Applicant (Falujo), in the fundamental human right application which had EFCC as the Respondent, had told the court a disturbing ordeal that happened while he visited the EFCC Ibadan office to represent his client which made him to lose another client.

According to Falujo, he was forced to surrender his iPhone, Samsung Flip 3, and even his Apple wristwatch without any legal basis before being allowed to enter the EFCC Ibadan office.

“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.”

Falujo narrated that while his phones were seized, he missed critical calls including one from a client who was unable to reach him, and hired another lawyer.

At the hearing of application, Adedeji Falujo, who sought serval reliefs from the court through his counsel, Boluwatife J. Sanya of Paddle Solicitors, argued that the use of telephones is a means of expression to impart ideas and receive information and that before the EFCC could restrict such, there must have been a law allowing the agency to do same.

However, ruling on the application on July 7, the court agreed with the Applicant’s submission and consequently granted all the reliefs sought including barring the agency from the practice forthwith.

The court ordered 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.

“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 to mandatorily submit electronic gadgets, phones, smart watches and other related devices before granted access into the 1st Respondent’s office.

“A DECLARATION that the mandatory collection of the Applicant’s telephone; i-phone 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.

“PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the Respondents, its officers, agents and/or representatives from collection of phones, smart wrist-watch from the Applicant before he accesses the 1st respondent’s office,” the court held.

Speaking with journalists, the Applicant counsel described the judgement a landmark that has enriched the legal jurisprudence on digital freedom of expression restricted by Nigerian public institutions.

He noted that the conduct of collecting phones at the gates of agencies has now become a norm in Nigeria but it is hopeful that this sound and remarkable judgment will put to a stop to it.