The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has ruled that the Nigeria Police Force lacks the legal authority to approach Magistrate Courts to obtain orders freezing or placing post-no-debit restrictions on citizens’ bank accounts.
The judgment, delivered on April 2, 2026, by Honourable Justice B.F.M. Nyako in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/842/2025, arose from a dispute between Chukwu Lincoln Ofodile (the Plaintiff) and several defendants including the Inspector General of Police, senior officers of the INTERPOL unit, and multiple commercial banks—Union Bank PLC, First City Monument Bank, Access Bank PLC, and First Bank of Nigeria PLC.
The case stemmed from actions taken by police officers who, during an investigation, obtained a Magistrate Court order directing the Plaintiff’s bank accounts to be placed on post-no-debit restriction. Acting on that order, the listed banks froze the accounts. The Plaintiff challenged the action, arguing that the entire process was unlawful, unconstitutional, and without legal backing.
In delivering judgment, Justice Nyako emphasized that jurisdiction is the foundation of every judicial process, and without it, any proceeding—no matter how properly conducted—becomes a nullity, citing Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962).
The Court carefully examined relevant provisions of the EFCC Act 2004 and the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, concluding that only the Federal High Court or a State High Court has the exclusive power to issue orders freezing or restricting bank accounts.
Justice Nyako stressed that no law enforcement agency, regardless of its prosecutorial authority, can lawfully impose a post-no-debit restriction without a valid order from a court of competent jurisdiction obtained within a reasonable time. The Court warned that allowing otherwise would encourage abuse of power and undermine legal order.
It further held that Magistrate, Area, and Customary Courts lack jurisdiction to issue such financial restriction orders, referencing both statutory provisions and prior judicial decisions.
The Court also agreed with the Plaintiff that freezing his accounts without granting him a fair hearing violated his constitutional rights under Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution, and unlawfully interfered with his right to property under Section 44(1).
The Defendants’ objection claiming abuse of court process was dismissed, with the Court finding that the present suit was not identical to the earlier case cited.
Consequently, the Court declared the Magistrate Court order null and void, set aside the post-no-debit restrictions, and directed the immediate removal of all blocks placed on the Plaintiff’s accounts.
The judgment reinforces the legal position that only superior courts—such as the Federal High Court and State High Courts—can lawfully authorize the freezing of bank accounts in criminal investigations, and serves as a warning to law enforcement agencies and banks to strictly adhere to due process.
