•EFCC operatives
Counsels to Pentech Engineering Nigeria Limited & Alhaji Hamza Koshe Akuyam in respect of suit No. BA/271/2024 have described as erroneous, false and misleading, publication by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, on the matter.
The Legal representatives led by Jibrin S. Jibrin Esq. reminded the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), that as a Commission duly established by law and one which is subject to the powers, authority and jurisdiction of the Courts, it owes the nation as well as members of the public, the duty of relating only the truth of what the Courts have decided as regards the Contract Financing Agreement in issue in both matters of where their clients are parties, reports Daily Independent.
In a statement titled: “Judgement of the High Court of Bauchi State, Pentech & Another versus EFCC: The Record and Fact of the Matter”, the legal team described the publication as most unfortunate.
“Our attention as the legal representatives of Pentech Engineering Nigeria Limited & Alhaji Hamza Koshe Akuyam in respect of suit No. BA/271/2024 has been drawn to the statement posted on the official page of Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on Wednesday 27th August, 2025 wherein the Commission rendered supposedly an analysis of the judgement delivered by the High Court of Justice No. 4 Bauchi presided by His Lordship,
Justice Aliyu Baba Usman on the 30th July 2025.
“Now against the background of the erroneous, false and misleading publication by the EFCC on the matter, we deem it necessary to set the records straight by stating what actually is the truth of the matter in terms of the enrolled judgment Order of the Court to which this press release is attached for better appreciation.
“Before harping further on this issue, we thought it proper to state as a fact that in an earlier judgement relating to the subject of this release, the verdict of the High Court of Justice No. 10 Bauchi, presided by His Lordship Justice M. M. Abubakar delivered on the 19th December, 2024 is to the effect that the Contract Financing Agreement, the subject matter of the suit having been found to be valid and not contravening any law, remains enforceable and hence such parties, like our first client here (ie. Pentech Engineering Nigeria Limited) is accorded the applicable injunctive reliefs as regards the activities of the Commission,” the statement read.
They stated that the EFCC failed to state in its statement in reference the fact that many parties and contractors concerned or involved in the Contract Financing Agreement in issue have been invited by the Commission with virtually all of them responding, honoring its invitation on the matter and thereby discharging their legal obligation speak volumes of ‘the bidding of some’ which the publication seeks to achieve ab initio.
“Against the background of the foregoing, we state as a fact that the main question of law determined in Justice Aliyu Baba Usman’s judgment is to the effect that the Contract Financing Agreement the subject of the suit is valid,” the Legal Team said.
According to them,”The mischief and deliberate misrepresentation in EFCC’s statement can be seen when not only did it make no mention of this material fact but it also created the impression that our clients went to Court to evade investigation on the matter. That is not true.
“On the contrary, the truth of the matter is that our clients (through our 2nd Client, i.e Alhaji Hamza Koshe) was a guest of the Commission having honored its invitation in September 2024 at the end of which he was released on administrative bail the terms and conditions applicable to whichhe has been observing,” they added.
The statement further contained that, “Discerning members of the public can therefore see through the deliberate falsehood, obfuscation of issues and outright misleading publication aimed at scoring no tangible result other than attracting cheap publicity and subjecting our clients to totally defamatory and undeserving public attention.”
They lamented that the EFCC is subjecting their clients to totally defamatory and undeserving public attention explaining that, “It is also important to clarify as a fact that there is no truth at all in the Commission’s statement to the effect that our client sought a perpetual injunction of general nature against the Commission’s activities.”
According to them, “The truth about the reliefs sought by our clients is as contained in the Court’s processes filed in the suit in reference. We thus challenge the Commission to provide evidence of where our client ever sought a perpetual injunction at large or of general nature against it or any other body duly established by law.
“In view of what has been said above, we urge members of the public to disregard in its entirety EFCC’s statement on the subject and be guided in its stead by the facts as contained in the relevant court processes to which this release is attached,” they added.
The legal team added that, “We believe that although its absence on the day of the judgement in issue is inexcusable, it is clear that EFCC’s position as contained in its statement would have been materially different if it were
represented in Court on that day.”
They declares that, “We maintain our client’s standing as responsible, law abiding and dutiful citizens who are conscious of their legal rights and obligations as it relates to their relationship with all and sundry including the Commission. And so far, it is gratifying that the truth has been setting them free.”
The legal team is made up of Jibrin S. Jibrin Esq., M. M. Usman Esq. H. B. Pali Esq., Abbas Ibrahim Esq., I. G. Agwam Esq. and Salome Audu Esq.
