The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has denied reports claiming that its counsel, Larry Peters Aso, admitted that the Commission’s 2024 investigation report against legal practitioner Dr Ted Iseghohi-Edwards was prepared under pressure from senior officials in connection with the controversial London-Paris Club refunds.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/2026-IDRI-Masterclass.png")
The anti-graft agency described the reports as misleading and mischievous, insisting that its lawyer made no such statement when reacting to the judgment delivered by Justice Suleiman Belgore of the Federal Capital Territory High Court, Abuja, on October 20, 2026.
In a statement issued on Monday, November 2, 2026, and signed by its Head of Media and Publicity, Dele Oyewale, the EFCC maintained that Aso’s remarks had been misrepresented in reports concerning the fundamental rights enforcement suit instituted by Iseghohi-Edwards.
The Commission explained that its counsel merely commended the judge for his handling of the proceedings and informed the court that the EFCC would obtain a Certified True Copy of the judgment before deciding on its next line of action.
The controversy followed the judgment of the FCT High Court, which set aside an EFCC investigation report accusing Iseghohi-Edwards of fraud in connection with legal services rendered to Nigeria’s 774 local government councils over the London-Paris Club refunds.
Justice Belgore had ruled in favour of the lawyer in his fundamental rights enforcement action against the EFCC, the Attorney-General of the Federation, the Inspector-General of Police and the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
The court held that the EFCC’s investigation report dated August 14, 2024, which accused the lawyer of fraudulent conduct in relation to the refunds, was unjustified and contradicted earlier investigations conducted in 2016.
According to the judgment, the earlier investigations by the EFCC and the State Security Service (SSS) had cleared Iseghohi-Edwards of wrongdoing concerning the transactions.
The judge faulted the subsequent investigation, holding that the anti-graft agency could not properly use a fresh report to contradict earlier findings concerning matters already adjudicated by courts of competent jurisdiction.
The court further found that Iseghohi-Edwards had a valid contractual arrangement with the Incorporated Trustees of the Association of Local Governments of Nigeria (ALGON), which engaged him to represent the interests of the 774 local government councils in the refund dispute.
Justice Belgore noted that the terms of the engagement had been negotiated between the parties and subsequently renegotiated in open court on September 15, 2016.
The judgment also addressed the issuance of 10 promissory notes connected with the legal services and the enforcement of earlier court decisions.
The court held that the promissory notes were validly issued pursuant to an order of mandamus made by the Federal High Court against the Federal Government.
Justice Belgore consequently questioned the decision of the EFCC and the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation to subject the judgments obtained by the lawyer to further investigation instead of challenging the decisions through the appropriate appellate procedures.
The judge granted 20 of the 21 reliefs sought by Iseghohi-Edwards, including an order nullifying the disputed investigation report.
The court also issued a perpetual injunction restraining the respondents and their agents from further harassing, inviting, arresting, detaining or prosecuting the lawyer in connection with the same London-Paris Club refunds matter covered by the judgment.
However, following the ruling, some reports attributed comments to the EFCC’s counsel suggesting that the Commission’s 2024 report had been influenced by developments involving litigation against the Federal Government in the United States.
The reports suggested that Aso linked the investigation report to allegations that Iseghohi-Edwards had fraudulently obtained judgments and subsequently instituted proceedings against the Nigerian Government in the United States.
Other accounts claimed that the investigation report was prepared under pressure from higher authorities after the lawyer assigned promissory notes to third parties in the United States, who allegedly threatened legal action against the Federal Government.
Reacting, the EFCC rejected the attribution of those statements to its counsel.
The Commission maintained that Aso did not make any comment suggesting that the disputed investigation report resulted from pressure by senior government or EFCC officials.
According to the statement, Aso merely thanked Justice Belgore for his efforts in handling the case and stated that the Commission would obtain the Certified True Copy of the judgment “and study it to know the necessary steps to take.”
The EFCC specifically denied that its counsel made any admission concerning the circumstances surrounding the preparation of the August 2024 investigation report.
“He never said anything about any EFCC 2024 report on an allegation that Iseghoi-Edwards ‘fraudulently obtained the judgments, because he instituted proceedings against the Federal government in the United States,’” the Commission stated.
The EFCC also rejected the suggestion that its counsel attributed the preparation of the report to pressure from higher authorities following the assignment of promissory notes to third parties abroad.
According to the Commission, claims that Aso made such statements after the lawyer allegedly assigned promissory notes to third parties in the United States, where they threatened to sue the Federal Government, were mischievous and intended to damage reputations.
It described the accounts as a deliberate attempt at character assassination, maintaining that they falsely portrayed the investigation as having been influenced by external considerations.
The Commission insisted that the statements attributed to its lawyer did not accurately represent what transpired in court.
It further maintained that the disputed reports created an impression that persons outside the EFCC had influenced the conduct of the investigation, an allegation it rejected.
The agency consequently urged journalists and media organisations to verify statements made during judicial proceedings before attributing them to lawyers or other participants.
It specifically referred to the official record of proceedings of October 20, 2026, when Justice Belgore delivered the judgment, saying the record could be consulted to establish what its counsel actually said.
According to the EFCC, the court proceedings would confirm that Aso’s response was limited to acknowledging the judgment and indicating the Commission’s intention to study it before determining the appropriate next steps.
The anti-graft agency called on the media to exercise greater accuracy, fairness and objectivity when reporting judicial decisions and statements made by legal practitioners.
It maintained that responsible reporting of court proceedings was necessary to protect the integrity of the justice system and prevent the dissemination of misleading accounts.
The controversy has drawn attention to the distinction between the findings contained in Justice Belgore’s judgment and the separate statements attributed to counsel for the EFCC after the ruling.
While the court nullified the August 2024 investigation report and granted reliefs in favour of Iseghohi-Edwards, the EFCC’s latest statement specifically disputes the reported remarks attributed to Aso concerning the preparation of that report.
The clarification does not alter the judgment delivered by the FCT High Court or constitute an appeal against it.
The Commission has instead maintained that it intends to examine the Certified True Copy of the decision before determining any further legal action.
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
Available now for NGN 40,000 at ASC Publications, 10, Boyle Street, Onikan, Lagos. Beside High Court, TBS. Email publications@ayindesanni.com or WhatsApp +2347056667384. Purchase Link: https://paystack.com/buy/evidence-act-complete-annotation
______________________________________________________________________ “Enhance Legal Practice With Authoritative Reports” — Alexander Payne Offers Comprehensive Law Reports, Spanning Over A Century Of Nigerian Jurisprudence
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
