The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission has appealed the judgment of the Federal Capital Territory High Court ordering it to pay former Minister of Power, Olu Agunloye, N10 million in damages over a publication the court found to be defamatory.
In an 11-ground notice of appeal filed before the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal, the anti-graft agency asked the appellate court to set aside the entire judgment delivered by Justice Peter Kekemeke on July 8, 2026, and dismiss Agunloye’s suit.
Justice Kekemeke had held that the EFCC’s publication titled, “EFCC Arraigns Agunloye Over $6bn Fraud,” was false and defamatory because the former minister was not standing trial for an offence involving fraud valued at $6 billion.
The court consequently ordered the commission to pay Agunloye N10 million in damages, publish an unreserved apology on its website and in two national newspapers, retract the publication and refrain from issuing similar reports about him.
However, the EFCC argued in its appeal that the trial court failed to properly evaluate the oral and documentary evidence placed before it and wrongly concluded that Agunloye had established a case of libel.
The commission said the evidence, including exhibits tendered before the lower court and the testimony of its witness, Assistant Commissioner of Police Umar Hussain Babangida, overwhelmingly supported its case.
According to the EFCC, a proper evaluation of Exhibits A, B, D and E, alongside Babangida’s testimony, would have led the court to dismiss Agunloye’s claims.
The commission further contended that the trial judge failed to adequately consider the essential elements required to establish libel, particularly whether the publication was false and whether it was protected by the defences of justification, qualified privilege and fair comment.
It maintained that the publication substantially reflected the circumstances surrounding Agunloye’s arraignment in connection with the controversial $6 billion Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project.
The EFCC argued that the substance of the report was that Agunloye had been arraigned over alleged fraud connected with the project, insisting that this was substantially true.
It faulted the trial court for treating the headline as merely sensational and placing excessive emphasis on the distinction between the total value of the Mambilla project and the specific offences contained in the criminal charge.
The commission also maintained that the publication was a fair, accurate and contemporaneous report of proceedings conducted in open court and was issued in the discharge of its statutory responsibility to inform Nigerians about corruption cases.
According to the EFCC, the judge wrongly rejected the defence of privilege on the ground that the commission is an investigative agency rather than a news organisation.
It said its investigating officer testified that the report was based on official investigation records and court proceedings, while the former minister failed to establish express malice.
It said its investigating officer testified that the report was based on official investigation records and court proceedings, while the former minister failed to establish express malice.
On the award of damages, the EFCC argued that Agunloye did not prove that the publication lowered his reputation in the estimation of right-thinking members of society.
The commission noted that one of Agunloye’s witnesses admitted that he continued to hold the former minister in high regard after reading the report, while Agunloye remained the National Secretary of the Social Democratic Party.
It maintained that any reputational damage suffered by the former minister arose from the pending criminal proceedings rather than the commission’s report of his arraignment.
The EFCC consequently described the N10 million damages awarded by the trial court as arbitrary, excessive, punitive and unsupported by evidence.
It argued that the award was disproportionate to the circumstances of the case and warranted the intervention of the appellate court.