Mastercraft Computer and Recording Studio Lagos

Never envy them when they flaunt cash around, their ways of earning is not same as yours. All glitters is not gold!

THE EFCC’S COMEDY OF ERRORS: A LEGAL BREAKDOWN OF ABSURDITIES

Once again, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has taken center stage—not as a law enforcement agency, but as a caricature of one—following its questionable arrest and detention of social commentator, Martins Otse, popularly known as VeryDarkMan (VDM). Let’s examine their official explanation and expose the inconsistencies, legal flaws, and shallow justifications, beginning with their governing law, due process, and basic logic.

1. WHERE IS THE PETITION?
EFCC’s Claim: “We received multiple petitions alleging financial crimes…”
The Truth: According to VDM’s legal counsel, Deji Adeyanju, the EFCC openly admitted that no such petition was on record.
Legal Perspective: Section 6(b) of the EFCC Act states that its investigative authority is activated only upon receipt of a complaint or credible information. Without a petition, what sparked their action? Are we now embracing anticipatory witch-hunts?
Conclusion: No petition, no legal footing. The EFCC is casting its net in an empty ocean.

2. INVITATIONS OR POST-HOC JUSTIFICATIONS?
EFCC’s Claim: “He failed to respond to several invitations…”
Reality Check: There’s no proof of service. Neither VDM nor his legal representatives acknowledged receiving any invitation. This appears to be an after-the-fact excuse.
Legal Requirement: The Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), Order 2 Rule 1, requires proper notification before any lawful arrest.
Critical Question: Through what means were these so-called invitations sent—Email? Text? Smoke signals?

3. BAIL FOR AN UNKNOWN OFFENCE?
EFCC’s Claim: “He has been granted administrative bail.”
Logical Fallacy: Bail typically follows arrest based on a clear allegation or charge—not vague claims or invisible petitions.
Legal Contradiction: Section 41 of the EFCC Act mandates that suspects be informed of the reason for their arrest. Has this been fulfilled? Even the EFCC seems uncertain.
Bottom Line: