FCT High Court Nullifies EFCC Report in $159m ALGON Refund Dispute
ABUJA — A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory has nullified a 2024 Economic and Financial Crimes Commission report concerning lawyer Ted Iseghohi-Edwards and restrained further enforcement action against him over the same London and Paris Club refund dispute addressed in earlier proceedings.
Justice Suleiman Belgore delivered the judgment in a fundamental-rights suit brought against the EFCC, the Attorney-General of the Federation, the Inspector-General of Police and the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
The court also found that Iseghohi-Edwards’ arrest, detention and threats of further action over the identified matter violated his rights.
Court nullifies 2024 EFCC report
At the centre of the case was an EFCC report dated August 14, 2024 concerning the London and Paris Club refund transactions.
According to the court reporting reviewed by IDNN, the judge held that the later report conflicted with earlier investigative findings and judicial decisions addressing the dispute.
The court consequently nullified the 2024 report.
The ruling should not be expanded into a finding that every allegation connected to every Paris Club refund proceeding was false.
$159m professional-fee claim
The dispute involves a reported $159 million professional-fee claim connected to legal and consultancy services provided in relation to refunds due to Nigeria’s local governments.
Court reporting says the claim was represented through 10 promissory notes valued at $15.9 million each.
The court was also reported to have upheld the notes within the context of the dispute before it.
Because IDNN has not directly reviewed the certified judgment, broader conclusions about the legal effect of those findings should remain limited to the reported orders.
Injunction applies to the same matter
The court issued a perpetual injunction restraining further arrest, harassment, detention, charging or prosecution of Iseghohi-Edwards in relation to the same London/Paris Club refund matter.
That limitation is important.
An injunction concerning the same dispute does not create immunity from an unrelated lawful investigation.
Nor should the judgment automatically be treated as resolving separate proceedings involving other parties or legally distinct claims.
EFCC explains basis for later report
The EFCC’s counsel told the court that the 2024 report followed later litigation in the United States concerning the promissory notes.
That was the agency’s explanation for revisiting the matter.
The court did not accept that basis as sufficient to sustain the challenged report and enforcement action in this case.
Related Paris Club cases remain distinct
The broader London and Paris Club refund controversy has generated multiple claims, proceedings and disputes involving different parties.
Those matters must be separated carefully.
The FCT High Court judgment concerning Iseghohi-Edwards should not be presented as resolving every Paris Club refund case or every dispute involving ALGON.
Due process versus investigative authority
The case raises a broader accountability question about the limits of investigative power when an issue has already been examined by courts or earlier investigations.
Law-enforcement and anti-corruption agencies retain statutory investigative powers.
Courts, however, also have authority to enforce rights and protect the finality of judicial decisions.
The practical questions now include:
- whether any respondent appeals;
- how the injunction is implemented;
- whether legally distinct proceedings continue;
- whether the certified judgment further defines the limits of future investigation;
- and whether agencies alter their handling of disputes already subjected to judicial determination.
Until the primary judgment is reviewed directly, the safe formulation remains:
the FCT High Court nullified the 2024 EFCC report and restrained further action against Iseghohi-Edwards over the same London/Paris Club refund dispute.