Court of Appeal: Magu’s five-year acting tenure as EFCC chairman was unlawful

Image: Anasskoko / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0

The judgment reverses a 2019 Federal High Court decision that the EFCC Act set no limit on acting appointments after Senate rejection.

Jurisdiction NigeriaPractice Competition and Regulatory, Dispute Resolution and ArbitrationSector Public Sector

The Court of Appeal in Abuja has held that Ibrahim Magu’s continued tenure as acting chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission from November 2015 to July 2020, after the Senate twice refused to confirm him, was unlawful. The three-member panel delivered judgment in September 2026 on an appeal by Abuja lawyer Johnmary Jideobi, overturning a 2019 judgment of Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu of the Federal High Court.

The issue

Section 2(3) of the EFCC (Establishment) Act provides that the chairman and members are appointed by the President subject to Senate confirmation, and sets a four-year tenure renewable once. Mr Jideobi argued, in a suit filed on 2 March 2017, that the Senate’s rejection ended the acting appointment. The Federal High Court had held that the Act did not specify how long an acting chairman could serve, leaving the President a discretion. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision. The respondents were the Senate, the Attorney-General of the Federation, the EFCC and Mr Magu.

Effect

The judgment concerns a tenure that ended in 2020, when Mr Magu was suspended; the current EFCC leadership is unaffected. Its significance lies in the principle: where a statute requires legislative confirmation, the executive cannot keep a rejected nominee in office indefinitely in an acting capacity.

Why it matters

Acting appointments are common across Nigerian regulators and agencies, sometimes for long periods. Regulated businesses dealing with an agency led by an acting head may ask whether actions taken during an unlawfully prolonged acting tenure are valid. Nigerian courts generally apply the de facto officer doctrine to protect third parties and the validity of official acts, and the judgment is unlikely to unsettle EFCC actions between 2015 and 2020. It may, however, be cited in challenges to acting appointments at other agencies and in disputes over the regularity of regulatory decisions taken by boards or heads whose appointments are contested.