In a decisive rebuke of overreach by Nigeria’s anti-graft agency, the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory has ordered the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission to pay ₦2 million for unlawfully freezing the bank account of Homadil Realty Limited. The ruling, delivered on 23 April 2026 by Justice M. A. Hassan, found that the EFCC exceeded its statutory authority when it directed Zenith Bank to keep the company’s account under a post no debit restriction without first securing judicial approval.
The case, filed under Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/830/2025, hinged on a simple but crucial legal principle: the EFCC may impose an initial account restriction for a limited period, but any extension demands a court order. Instead of following that procedure, the Commission issued successive letters instructing the bank to maintain the freeze, a move Justice Hassan described as a blatant violation of Homadil Realty’s constitutional right to property. He reminded law enforcement that Nigeria operates under democratic principles and the rule of law, where every institution must act within the boundaries set by statute.
The judgment carries added weight given the context. The EFCC told the court its investigation stemmed from a petition filed on behalf of Colleen Mero Yesufu concerning specific plots in Guzape and Katampe. Rebecca Omokamo Godwin-Isaac, who leads Homadil Realty, has since filed a cross-petition questioning the roles of Yesufu, Richard John Idakwogi of Rychado Homes Ltd, and Samuel I. Chime in the dispute. When the unlawful freeze is viewed alongside the string of criminal, forfeiture, and property actions tied to the same conflict, the pattern suggests a sustained campaign against Rebecca and her firm rather than the impartial inquiry one would expect from the EFCC.
Beyond the fine against the EFCC, the court separately ordered Zenith Bank to pay Homadil Realty another ₦2 million for complying with the unlawful directives, bringing total compensation to ₦4 million. For Rebecca and her company, the outcome is more than financial redress—it is a clear judicial affirmation that no institution, however powerful, stands above the law. She remained steady throughout the ordeal, trusting the legal process to correct what she saw as an abuse of power. This ruling reinforces that the courts remain a dependable shield for citizens whose rights are trampled by state actors.
