The continued detention of two individuals, Abdulmalik Shehu and Jason Chinoyerem Patsimon, by operatives of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for more than a month without being charged before a court has raised serious questions about respect for fundamental rights, due process and the limits of law enforcement powers in Nigeria.
The two men were reportedly taken into custody on the night of September 17 along Kuje Road in Gwagwalada, Federal Capital Territory, in an operation attributed to EFCC operatives. They have remained in the commission’s detention since the incident, according to the information available.
As of October 17, more than a month after their reported arrest, the men have allegedly not been charged before a court over any criminal offence.
Their continued detention raises a fundamental question: how long can a Nigerian citizen remain in the custody of an investigative agency without being brought before a court to answer allegations against him?
The EFCC is empowered by law to investigate financial crimes, apprehend suspects and prosecute offences within its statutory mandate. However, those powers do not place the commission above the Constitution or exempt its officers from compliance with legal safeguards governing arrest and detention.
Section 35 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended, guarantees the right to personal liberty and establishes conditions under which a person may lawfully be deprived of that liberty. It also provides safeguards concerning the detention of arrested persons, including requirements relating to being informed of the grounds for arrest and being brought before a court within the constitutionally prescribed period.
The applicable timeframe depends on the circumstances of the arrest, including whether a court of competent jurisdiction is within a reasonable distance and the legal basis for the detention.
Consequently, the allegation that the two men have spent more than a month in EFCC custody without being charged raises serious legal questions that warrant urgent clarification. Whether their detention is lawful depends on the specific circumstances, applicable legal provisions and any relevant court orders or proceedings.
An investigative agency’s authority to question suspects cannot be interpreted as an unlimited licence to keep people in custody indefinitely. Investigation and prosecution are distinct processes, and the existence of an ongoing investigation does not, by itself, settle whether continued detention is lawful.
The presumption of innocence is another essential safeguard. Until a court determines otherwise, a person accused of a crime is presumed innocent. An arrest is not a conviction, and detention must not become a substitute for the judicial process.
For Shehu and Patsimon, the central concern is not whether law enforcement agencies should investigate suspected financial crimes. They should. The question is whether the procedures governing their detention have been followed and whether the authorities can explain the legal basis for keeping them in custody for this length of time.
If the men have not been charged, what legal grounds justify their continued detention? Has a court authorised any extension or made an order affecting their custody? Have they been given access to legal representation, and have their families been informed of the circumstances surrounding their detention?
These are questions that deserve clear answers from the commission.
The EFCC’s mandate to combat corruption and financial crimes is important to public accountability. But the credibility of that mandate also depends on adherence to the law. An agency charged with enforcing the law must itself remain subject to its requirements.
Where a suspect is held beyond the period permitted by law without an adequate legal basis, the issue extends beyond an individual detention. It becomes a question about the practical protection of constitutional rights and the safeguards available to citizens dealing with powerful state institutions.
The reported detention of Shehu and Patsimon therefore warrants an explanation from the EFCC regarding the allegations against them, the legal basis for their continued custody and whether any court proceedings or orders exist in relation to their detention.
As of the time of writing, no independently verified information has been provided establishing the specific allegations against the two men, the commission’s official position on their detention or whether any judicial order authorises their continued custody.
The EFCC should be given an opportunity to respond to these allegations. However, the need for a response does not diminish the importance of the legal questions raised by the reported circumstances.
For a country governed by a written Constitution, the decisive question is not merely whether authorities possess the power to arrest. It is whether that power is exercised within the limits established by law.
The continued detention of Abdulmalik Shehu and Jason Chinoyerem Patsimon, if confirmed to have occurred without a lawful basis for their prolonged custody, would raise a serious question of constitutional compliance that deserves proper legal scrutiny.