Operatives of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Nigeria Police Force clashed following the re-arrest of two suspects by the anti-graft agency over a case already under police investigation—a move a lawyer has described as “double jeopardy”.
Khadijah Bayern, an Abuja-based lawyer, has petitioned the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), saying that the EFCC intimidated and unlawfully detained her clients, Illesanmi Olaniyi and Ishola Maruf.
The “Double Jeopardy and Intimidation” suit questions the EFCC’s activities after the accused were previously detained and given administrative release by the Police Force Intelligence Department (FID) in March 2024.
According to Bayern, her clients were initially arrested due to a supposed financial issue with a new generation bank.
During the police investigation, two vehicles — a Toyota Hilux and a Toyota RAV4 — together with commodities, equipment, and papers were taken from their homes.
These objects remain in police custody, and a related forfeiture case is still pending in court.
Despite this, Bayern alleged that the EFCC’s Special Duty Section 2 (SDC2) invited and detained the same individuals on the same allegations, holding them for 12 days without bail.
“This amounts to double jeopardy,” she said. “The EFCC is aware that the case is already under police investigation and is currently in court. Their continued detention not only undermines ongoing legal proceedings but also poses serious health risks to my clients, who have documented medical conditions.”
Bayern urged the AGF to intervene and maintain legal consistency in the case’s management, warning of the hazards of overlapping authority among law enforcement organisations.
In a separate letter dated July 29, 2025, another legal representative for the suspects requested that the EFCC examine its bail restrictions, noting their clients’ fragile health and earlier administrative bail by the police.
The letter encouraged the EFCC to accept public officials with Grade Level 14 or 15 as sureties rather than the previously specified higher-grade criteria.
“This request is made in good faith,” the letter stated, “and will not interfere with the Commission’s investigation. What we are against is prolonged detention over a bailable offence already being handled by another agency.”
