Court Rules EFCC Staff Dismissal Is Unlawful

* Holds commission can’t rely on invalid staff handbook to dismiss employee

The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, dismissed an appeal filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) against its former employee, Abraham Akoji Abutu, holding that his dismissal was unlawful.

The decision was delivered by Justice Okon Abang, a member of a three‑man panel of the Court of Appeal in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CV/563/2023.

Justice Abang’s judgment was part of a notable body of work, as he handed down five judgments on the same day in addition to the instant appeal, following a previous quarter in which he delivered more than 28 judgments, underscoring his productivity on the appellate bench.

Upholding the judgment of the National Industrial Court (NIC), the Court of Appeal found Abutu’s dismissal null and void and ordered his reinstatement.

The appeal mainly challenged the trial court’s decision to reject the written statement on oath of the EFCC’s witness (DW1) and the documents presented through him.

Justice Abang held that the trial court erred by expunging the witness’s deposition and exhibits.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Katungu v. Umar, he noted that objections to defects in a witness statement on oath must be raised at the point of adoption, not at the stage of final written addresses.

Because no objection was raised when DW1 adopted his deposition, the Court of Appeal restored both the witness statement and the documents tendered through him.

Although the evidence was restored, the court declined the EFCC’s request to remit the matter to the NIC for a fresh evaluation. Instead, it exercised its powers under the Court of Appeal Act and decided the substantive issues itself.

Justice Abang observed that the respondent had opposed a remittal and that the EFCC failed to respond to that argument, thereby conceding the point. He further held that remitting the matter would serve no useful purpose.

Upon reviewing the evidence, the court found that the EFCC had not established compliance with the Public Service Rules before dismissing Abutu.

More significantly, the court identified fundamental defects in the EFCC Staff Handbook relied upon to justify the dismissal.

Justice Abang noted that there was no evidence the handbook had been validly approved, signed, or brought into force in accordance with Section 9(2) of the EFCC Act.

The court further held that even the restored evidence of DW1 did not demonstrate compliance with the Public Service Rules governing the discipline and removal of officers in the respondent’s category.

According to the court, Abutu was an established and pensionable employee whose appointment enjoyed statutory protection. Consequently, the EFCC lacked the authority to dismiss him without strictly following the applicable statutory procedures.

The court therefore resolved the substantive issues in favour of Abutu, dismissed the EFCC’s appeal for lacking merit, affirmed the NIC’s judgment, and awarded N300,000 in costs against the commission.

Abutu was employed by the EFCC on 18 July 2009 as a Deputy Detective Superintendent at Salary Grade Level 9, and his appointment was confirmed in December 2012.

The dispute arose after allegations that he issued dud cheques to his landlord in Abuja.

According to the facts before the court, he had rented a three‑bedroom apartment and later sought to convert the tenancy into a six‑month arrangement due to an anticipated transfer.

Following a petition by the property manager, the EFCC issued him a query in February 2013.

Although he responded to the allegations, the commission disengaged and eventually dismissed him later that year.

Abutu challenged the decision before the NIC, arguing that the Contravention and Disciplinary Policy Committee which recommended his dismissal was not recognised under the Public Service Rules.

The trial court agreed, declared the dismissal unlawful, and ordered his reinstatement, prompting the EFCC’s unsuccessful appeal.

The decision effectively reaffirms the legal infirmities surrounding the EFCC Staff Regulations and disciplinary instruments that have not been shown to have been validly brought into force under the EFCC Act.

It underscores the settled principle that disciplinary proceedings in public institutions must strictly comply with applicable statutory provisions and the Public Service Rules.

The judgment further demonstrates that public bodies cannot rely on internal regulations of doubtful legal validity to remove officers whose appointments enjoy statutory protection.

Beyond its significance for public sector employment law, the judgment reflects Justice Abang’s characteristic approach to adjudication.

Having corrected what he considered a procedural error by the trial court, he proceeded to undertake a comprehensive re‑evaluation of the record and decisively determine the substantive dispute rather than prolong the litigation through a remittal.

The decision is also consistent with the industrious judicial output for which Justice Abang has become increasingly known.

Having delivered five judgments on the same day in addition to the instant appeal, and more than 28 judgments in the preceding quarter, the jurist continues to distinguish himself through a combination of productivity, doctrinal clarity and willingness to confront difficult legal questions directly.

The judgment therefore stands not only as a vindication of the respondent’s rights and a reaffirmation of the supremacy of the Public Service Rules, but also as another illustration of the decisional firmness, jurisprudential confidence and analytical rigour that have become hallmarks of Justice Abang’s tenure on the appellate bench.

In unequivocal terms, the court made clear that the EFCC cannot lawfully dismiss a pensionable employee on the strength of an invalid staff handbook while disregarding the statutory procedures governing disciplinary action in the public service.