The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has announced its intention to appeal the recent court ruling that discharged and acquitted former Ekiti State Governor, Ayodele Fayose, in a high-profile ₦6.9 billion money laundering case. This development marks a dramatic twist in a legal battle that has spanned nearly seven years.

The anti-graft agency revealed this plan through an official statement on Wednesday, just hours after the Federal High Court in Ikoyi, Lagos, cleared Fayose of all charges. The court’s decision followed a no-case submission filed by the former governor’s legal team, which the presiding judge, Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke, upheld.

Background of the Case

The EFCC first arraigned Fayose and his company, Spotless Investment Limited, on October 22, 2018. The prosecution alleged that Fayose misappropriated public funds during his tenure as governor and laundered the proceeds through various channels, including through associates and shell companies. The case drew public attention due to its size, the political profile of the defendant, and the serious allegations of fraud and corruption.

The agency initially filed the case before Justice Mojisola Olatoregun. However, on July 2, 2019, the EFCC re-arraigned the defendants before Justice Aneke on an 11-count charge, which included money laundering, conspiracy, and stealing. Both Fayose and his company pleaded not guilty to all the charges.

Defence’s No-Case Submission

On May 19, 2025, Chief Kanu Agabi, SAN, representing Fayose, submitted a no-case application dated May 16. In his submission, Agabi argued that the EFCC had failed to establish any concrete link between Fayose and the alleged offenses. He contended that there was no prima facie case to justify the continuation of the trial.

Agabi further highlighted that a key figure in the alleged transaction, Abiodun Agbele, was never charged alongside his client. According to him, this undermined the credibility of the charges, particularly those related to conspiracy and criminal breach of trust. “You cannot claim a conspiracy and then fail to charge the co-conspirator,” Agabi argued.

He maintained that the EFCC’s case rested on assumptions rather than hard evidence. He also pointed out that Fayose had openly declared his assets and transactions, with no effort to conceal them, contrary to the EFCC’s claims.

Similarly, Olalekan Ojo, SAN, representing Spotless Investment Limited, echoed these arguments and submitted a separate no-case submission. He insisted that the EFCC’s evidence was inadequate and speculative.

EFCC’s Response to the Defence

Opposing the no-case submission, EFCC’s lead counsel, Rotimi Jacobs, SAN, urged the court to reject the application. In his response, Jacobs submitted a counter-affidavit and a written address dated May 8, 2025.

He argued that the defendants had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the large sums of money involved in the case. Jacobs questioned why Fayose had not used his personal accounts for the transactions if they were indeed lawful.

He further alleged that Fayose had purchased high-value properties using proxies, many of whom later disassociated themselves from the assets. According to Jacobs, these properties were part of the laundering scheme, and Fayose’s attempts to claim ownership in his statements contradicted the testimonies of those involved.

Jacobs also argued that the pattern of transactions raised several red flags and should not be dismissed without the defendant entering a defence.

Court’s Ruling and Acquittal

In his final ruling, Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke sided with the defence, stating that the EFCC failed to present sufficient evidence to justify a continuation of the trial. The judge agreed that the prosecution had not established a prima facie case against Fayose and that there was no compelling reason to require the defendant to open his defence.

As a result, the court discharged Fayose and Spotless Investment Limited of all charges, bringing the protracted legal battle to a sudden halt—at least for now.

EFCC’s Reaction and Next Steps

Reacting to the judgment, the EFCC expressed disappointment and emphasized that the battle is far from over. The commission disclosed that it is already reviewing the ruling in preparation for an appeal. In its statement, the EFCC reiterated its unwavering commitment to the rule of law and affirmed that it has instructed its legal team to challenge the acquittal in a higher court.

The agency maintained that the case is of significant public interest and concerns the integrity of Nigeria’s anti-corruption campaign. It assured Nigerians that it would exhaust all legal avenues to ensure that justice prevails.

Broader Implications

This case carries major implications for Nigeria’s legal and political landscape. For Fayose, the ruling serves as a legal and reputational victory after years of battling corruption allegations. The former governor, who has long claimed that the charges were politically motivated, will likely use the ruling to bolster his public image and reassert his political relevance.

On the other hand, the EFCC faces renewed scrutiny over its prosecution strategies and the effectiveness of its investigative processes. Critics may argue that the agency’s repeated failure to secure convictions in high-profile cases points to systemic weaknesses that must be addressed if the anti-graft fight is to be taken seriously.

What Comes Next?

As the EFCC prepares its appeal, all eyes will turn to the appellate court to determine whether the acquittal will stand or be overturned. Legal experts anticipate a rigorous legal contest that could shape future corruption trials in Nigeria.

In the meantime, the acquittal of Fayose adds to a growing list of high-profile corruption cases that have ended without convictions. For many Nigerians, this reinforces concerns about the accountability of public officials and the effectiveness of the justice system.

With billions of naira allegedly at stake and public trust hanging in the balance, the EFCC’s next steps will be crucial in determining how the public perceives its ability to fight corruption—especially when influential figures are involved.