A High Court in Oyo State has ruled that the compulsory surrender of mobile phones and digital devices as a condition for entry into the offices of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is unconstitutional and violates citizens’ rights to freedom of expression.
The ruling followed a suit filed by a legal practitioner, Adedeji Austine Falujo, against the EFCC and others in Suit No: M/32/2024, challenging the legality of the agency’s internal policy requiring visitors to drop their mobile devices at security posts before gaining access to its premises.
According to court filings, Falujo visited the EFCC’s Ibadan office on November 20, 2023, while representing a client. Upon arrival, EFCC officers allegedly informed him that he would not be allowed to enter the premises unless he surrendered his mobile phone and smartwatch.
Falujo reportedly questioned the legal basis for the directive but was told by officers that there was no specific law backing the restriction, describing it as an internal policy of the commission.
Due to the urgency of seeing his client, he complied with the directive under protest. He later argued that the restriction hindered his ability to receive calls and messages while inside the EFCC facility.
Aggrieved by the incident, Falujo approached the High Court, arguing that the compulsory collection of his mobile devices violated his constitutional right to receive and disseminate information under Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution.
He maintained that the EFCC’s action lacked any legal backing.
In its defence, the EFCC argued that fundamental rights are not absolute and may be limited in the interest of public safety, morality, welfare, and prevention of crime. The commission also contended that the claims brought by Falujo were not enforceable under the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules 2009.
The anti-graft agency further relied on Section 24(1) of the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023, arguing that it had the authority to regulate the use of electronic devices within its premises to prevent security breaches and unauthorised dissemination of information.
In its judgment, the court rejected the EFCC’s arguments and held that the compulsory submission of electronic devices amounted to a violation of Falujo’s right to freedom of expression.
The court stated that the concept of expression extends beyond speech to include the tools used for communication.
The court ruled that “the only circumstances when the 1st Respondent and its officers can seize the phones (or other personal effects) of a citizen is after the arrest, issuance of a search warrant or investigation of a citizen has begun.”
It further declared that “the policy of asking the Applicant or any other citizen of this country to surrender their means of communication, which is a phone, or any other communication device, is unlawful and unconstitutional interference.”
The judgment reinforces the legal position that security agencies must operate strictly within the confines of the law. It also raises broader concerns about operational practices at detention centres and security facilities across Nigeria, particularly regarding citizens’ constitutional rights.
Legal analysts say the ruling could influence operational procedures among security agencies and strengthen protections against arbitrary administrative policies affecting fundamental rights.
