Olukoyede EFCC Accountability Report Critique: Section 37 Report Unfiled

• EFCC Chairman Ola Olukoyede presented statistics on recoveries and convictions, including N1.233 trillion and 10,872 convictions, at a recent public event.
• Critics argue this presentation was a public relations exercise, not the comprehensive, audited report mandated by Section 37 of the EFCC Act.
• No EFCC chairman has submitted the statutory annual report with audited accounts since Nuhu Ribadu in 2006, marking 19 years of non-compliance.
• While some convictions were cited, many high-profile cases involving former public officials, such as Gabriel Suswam and Sambo Dasuki, remain unresolved after years or even decades.
• Olukoyede's pledge from October 2023 to conclude prosecutions within five years is contradicted by the protracted timelines of these ongoing high-profile cases.

This presentation, however, was not the comprehensive, audited annual report mandated by Section 37 of the EFCC Act, a statutory obligation that has largely gone unfulfilled for nearly two decades.

The Chairman of the Nigerian Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Ola Olukoyede, recently delivered a public address in Abuja, presenting a series of statistics on the agency's anti-corruption efforts. During the event, the EFCC reported a recovery of N1.233 trillion and announced 10,872 convictions, alongside a conviction-to-filing ratio of 75.1 percent. The invitation to the event controversially described the EFCC as a "security and an intelligence agency," a characterization that critics argue overstates its legal mandate as primarily an accountability body focused on economic and financial crimes.

However, this presentation, which included impressive EFCC conviction statistics, has drawn significant critique for its format and substance. Observers noted that the event served more as a public relations exercise than a formal accountability mechanism. Crucially, it did not constitute the comprehensive, audited annual report that Section 37 of the EFCC Act mandates the commission to submit to the National Assembly by September 30 each year. This distinction highlights a persistent gap between public pronouncements and statutory compliance regarding the Olukoyede EFCC accountability report critique.

The absence of a formal, audited report from the EFCC is not a new issue. The legal framework, specifically Section 37 of the EFCC Act, clearly stipulates the requirement for an annual report, complete with audited accounts, to be presented to the National Assembly. Despite this clear directive, no EFCC chairman has fulfilled this specific statutory obligation since Nuhu Ribadu did so in 2006, when he famously presented a detailed report and named individuals before the Senate. This historical context underscores a nearly two-decade-long period of non-compliance with a fundamental transparency requirement.

This ongoing failure to submit the mandated EFCC Act Section 37 report means that the commission's operations, including its financial dealings and overall efficacy, have largely escaped the rigorous scrutiny intended by law. The current chairman's presentation, while offering numerical insights, lacked the formal structure and independent verification inherent in a statutory report, raising questions about the true depth of accountability within Nigeria anti-corruption enforcement.

Beyond the reporting discrepancies, the effectiveness of EFCC high-profile case delays remains a significant concern. Chairman Olukoyede highlighted convictions of individuals such as Saleh Mamman, Robert Orya, and Chukwunyere Nwabuoku as landmark achievements. However, a closer examination reveals that these individuals were no longer in public office, nor were they governors, at the time of their convictions, which themselves took several years to secure. This pattern suggests that while convictions are achieved, they often target those who have lost political protection, and the process remains protracted.

Numerous other high-profile cases involving politically exposed persons continue to languish in the courts, often for years or even decades, without resolution. Examples include Gabriel Suswam, whose case concerning Benue Cement shares dates back over a decade and is still seeing written addresses adopted in 2026; Sambo Dasuki, whose arms-procurement charges predate Olukoyede's tenure by eight years and remain unresolved; and Sule Lamido, whose trial for allegations from his 2007–2015 tenure is frequently stalled by defense absences. Other notable cases include Yahaya Bello, facing two parallel trials with no verdict in sight and no witness yet personally linking him to transactions as of a March analysis; Sadiya Umar Farouq, who is currently declared wanted and at large; and Ifeanyi Okowa, arrested in November 2024 and currently engaging with the EFCC regarding his case and the release of his international passport. These protracted timelines are also documented in resources like HEDA’s annual COMPENDIUM OF 100 HIGH PROFILE CORRUPTION CASES IN NIGERIA.

The persistent delays in numerous high-profile corruption cases suggest that political office and influence continue to provide significant insulation against swift justice, despite official pronouncements of accountability. This reality stands in stark contrast to a specific pledge made by Ola Olukoyede EFCC Chairman during his confirmation in October 2023. At that time, he assured the Senate that prosecutions should ideally not extend beyond five years, from the court of first instance to the Supreme Court.

However, the current state of affairs directly contradicts this commitment. Cases like Suswam's have already spanned 13 years, Dasuki's 11 years, and Lamido's a decade, none of which appear to be nearing the five-year ceiling proposed by the chairman. This discrepancy between stated policy and actual outcomes highlights the deep-seated challenges in Nigeria anti-corruption enforcement, particularly when dealing with politically exposed persons, and raises questions about the efficacy of the EFCC's efforts beyond its reported conviction statistics scrutiny.

Lawyers and compliance officers should note the persistent challenges and delays in high-profile EFCC corruption cases, indicating that enforcement against politically exposed persons remains protracted despite public statements. This context is crucial for advising clients on potential litigation timelines and assessing the true efficacy of anti-corruption efforts, rather than relying on reported statistics alone.

Source: Analysis based on recent investigative reporting