In a landmark judgment that could redefine the relationship between law enforcement agencies and citizens’ digital rights in Nigeria, the Oyo State High Court has declared that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has no constitutional authority to confiscate mobile phones, smartwatches, or other electronic devices from visitors as a condition for granting them access into its offices. The court issued a perpetual injunction restraining the EFCC from continuing the practice, labeling it an infringement on constitutionally guaranteed rights to freedom of expression and access to information.

This decision was delivered on Monday, July 7, 2025, by Justice Oluwaseun Toluwanimi Ademola-Salami while ruling on a fundamental rights enforcement application filed by a legal practitioner, Adedeji Austine Falujo. The case was filed against the EFCC over an incident that occurred at the Commission’s Zonal Office in Ibadan, Oyo State.

Legal Practitioner Challenges EFCC Over Rights Violation

Falujo’s lawsuit stemmed from an encounter he had while visiting the EFCC office in Ibadan in his professional capacity to represent a client. Upon arrival at the gate, EFCC security operatives instructed him to surrender his electronic devices, including his iPhone, a Samsung Flip 3, and an Apple smartwatch, before he could be allowed into the premises. According to Falujo, he was given no lawful justification for the seizure and was merely told, “That’s our rule.”

He contended that this policy lacked any statutory or constitutional basis and that its enforcement amounted to an unlawful intrusion into his privacy and a violation of his right to freedom of expression. More critically, the lawyer noted that while his devices were in EFCC custody, he missed several urgent calls, including one from a client who, unable to reach him, hired a different legal representative—resulting in reputational and financial loss.

In his affidavit, Falujo emphasized that the use of digital devices, particularly phones and smartwatches, is now a fundamental means of communication and expression. He argued that the EFCC’s blanket policy of phone confiscation violates Section 39(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), which guarantees the right to freedom of expression, including the right to receive and impart ideas and information. Additionally, he invoked Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, which upholds similar freedoms.

Court Grants All Reliefs Sought by Applicant

Delivering judgment, Justice Ademola-Salami agreed entirely with the submissions of Falujo and his legal counsel, Boluwatife J. Sanya of Paddle Solicitors. The court declared that the EFCC’s policy of mandatory phone and gadget collection from visitors entering its offices was not supported by any constitutional or statutory provision.

In her ruling, the judge declared that:

“The use of telephones to communicate, make or receive calls, and send or receive messages constitutes an act of expression, particularly in receiving and imparting ideas, which is protected under Section 39(1) of the Constitution and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.”

The court also stated:

“The Respondents [EFCC and its officers] lack constitutional grounds or powers to restrain or restrict Nigerian citizens, particularly the Applicant, by mandating them to submit electronic gadgets such as phones, smartwatches, and related devices as a precondition for accessing their offices.”

Furthermore, the judge ruled that the specific action taken against Falujo—confiscating his iPhone 12 Mini, Samsung Flip 3, and Apple smartwatch—while he was on official duty to represent a client, amounted to an unlawful restriction of his constitutional rights. The court maintained that the interference disrupted his professional engagements, obstructed communication with colleagues, and resulted in a tangible loss of clientele.

Perpetual Injunction and Broader Implications

In addition to these declarations, the court issued a perpetual injunction against the EFCC, restraining the Commission and its agents, officers, or representatives from continuing the practice of seizing or mandating the submission of phones, smartwatches, or any electronic devices from citizens, particularly the applicant, as a prerequisite for entering any EFCC office across the country.

This landmark ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications for how public institutions—particularly those in the security and anti-corruption sectors—interact with citizens and handle privacy-related matters. For years, it has become standard practice across various government agencies and public offices in Nigeria to demand the submission of mobile phones and electronic devices from visitors. In some cases, this has led to allegations of surveillance, unauthorized access to private information, and suppression of civil rights.

Legal experts have praised the ruling as a significant step forward in protecting digital freedoms and enforcing constitutional safeguards. Speaking to reporters after the judgment, Falujo’s lawyer, Boluwatife Sanya, described the decision as a landmark that “has enriched the legal jurisprudence on digital freedom of expression and the limits of administrative discretion.”

He further added that while the practice of seizing phones at the gates of public offices has long been normalized, the ruling sends a clear message that no agency—regardless of its mandate—can operate outside the bounds of the law or disregard constitutional rights in the name of internal policy.

EFCC Yet to Respond Officially

As of the time of this report, the EFCC has not issued an official statement in response to the judgment. However, legal analysts believe the Commission may either comply with the court order or seek to appeal the ruling at a higher court, especially given the national implications of the injunction.

It remains unclear how the EFCC will adjust its internal security protocols in light of this decision. The agency has previously defended the gadget seizure policy as necessary to protect operational integrity and prevent visitors from recording sensitive information or engaging in unauthorized communication within its premises.

Nevertheless, the court’s ruling makes it explicitly clear that such practices must be grounded in law and cannot infringe on constitutionally protected rights under the pretext of internal rules or security concerns.

A Watershed Moment for Digital Rights

This ruling comes at a time when questions surrounding the protection of digital rights, freedom of expression, and privacy are gaining prominence in Nigeria’s legal and civil society landscape. The increasing digitization of communication and work has made mobile devices indispensable tools for daily functioning, including professional legal practice.

The Oyo High Court’s decision is expected to trigger a review of access protocols not only at the EFCC but also in other federal institutions, including the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), the Nigerian Immigration Service, and even the judiciary, where similar restrictions are occasionally enforced.

Ultimately, this case highlights the critical need for Nigerian institutions to evolve their practices in line with technological realities and constitutional protections. Citizens, professionals, and human rights advocates are hailing the judgment as a necessary check on institutional overreach and a major win for digital rights and civil liberties in Nigeria.