On Thursday, October 24, 2025, Nigeria’s House of Representatives in Abuja delivered a historic blow to executive overreach, passing a bill that would strip the president of unilateral power to remove the head of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). The move, spearheaded by Yusuf Adamu Gagdi, the APC lawmaker representing Jos North/Jos South in Plateau State, signals a seismic shift in how Nigeria’s most powerful anti-graft agency operates — and who controls it. The bill, which passed unanimously for second reading, would require a two-thirds majority vote from both the Senate and the House before the EFCC chairman can be removed. That’s not just a procedural tweak. It’s a constitutional rebalancing.
Why This Matters More Than It Sounds
For over two decades, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has operated under Section 3(2) of its 2004 Establishment Act — a clause that let the president fire its chair for vague reasons like "inability to discharge functions" or if it was "not in the interest of the public." It sounds reasonable on paper. In practice? It became a political weapon. The 2015 removal of Ibrahim Lamorde and the 2021 suspension of Abdulrasheed Bawa weren’t just administrative decisions. They were moments when the agency’s independence was visibly compromised, and public trust cracked. Gagdi didn’t mince words: "This power has been abused. Time and again, it’s been used to silence investigators who got too close to the wrong people." The twist? This isn’t about punishing any one president. It’s about protecting the institution from future ones. "We’re not targeting the office," Gagdi told reporters after the vote. "We’re protecting the law."The Players Behind the Bill
Gagdi, a 52-year-old legislator who took office in June 2023, didn’t draft this in isolation. He had backing from Ginger Onwusibe, the Labour Party MP from Abia State and Chairman of the House Committee on Financial Crimes. Onwusibe, who’s held the committee chair since the 10th Assembly convened, called the amendment "long overdue." He pointed to the EFCC’s outdated mandate — still rooted in 2004, when Bitcoin was worth less than $10 and online fraud was barely on the radar. The bill doesn’t just tweak removal procedures. It modernizes the EFCC’s scope to explicitly include cybercrime, cryptocurrency laundering, real estate-based money laundering, and terrorism financing. That’s critical. In 2024 alone, Nigeria recorded over 12,000 cases of crypto-related fraud, according to the Central Bank. Yet the EFCC’s legal tools to chase digital trails were still written for paper ledgers and bank transfers. "We’re catching up," Onwusibe said. "The cracks in the system weren’t just in the law — they were in our thinking."What’s in the Bill — And What’s Not
The proposed amendment is narrow but potent. It doesn’t touch the president’s power to appoint the EFCC chairman. Nor does it change the grounds for removal — misconduct, incapacity, or public interest — but it removes the president’s sole authority to act on them. Now, if a president wants to fire the EFCC boss, they’d need to convince at least 54 senators and 267 members of the House. That’s a high bar. And that’s the point. Critics argue this could lead to gridlock. But supporters counter: if the chairman is truly corrupt or incompetent, the legislature should have to publicly justify the removal. No more midnight firings. No more backroom deals. Just accountability. The bill also removes the phrase "if the President is satisfied" — a legal loophole that allowed subjective interpretations. Now, removal would hinge on objective votes, not presidential opinion.Historical Context: When Power Wasn’t Checked
The EFCC was created in 2003 under Decree No. 13, born out of public outrage over financial corruption. It quickly became Nigeria’s most feared agency — and the most politically vulnerable. Under former President Goodluck Jonathan, the EFCC was used aggressively against opposition figures. Under President Buhari, it was criticized for selective enforcement. In both cases, the chairman served at the president’s pleasure. The 2015 removal of Lamorde came after he opened investigations into powerful figures linked to Jonathan’s administration. Bawa’s 2021 suspension followed a high-profile probe into a senator’s offshore accounts. Both were reinstated later — but not before damage was done. The public saw a pattern: when the EFCC got too close, someone pulled the plug. Gagdi cited these cases repeatedly on the floor. "We’re not rewriting history," he said. "We’re preventing it from repeating."What Happens Next?
The bill has been referred to the House Committee on Financial Crimes, chaired by Onwusibe. Public hearings are scheduled within the next three weeks. Stakeholders — including the EFCC itself, civil society groups, and legal experts — will be invited to testify. The committee has 21 legislative days to complete its review before the bill returns for third reading. If it passes, the bill moves to the Senate. There, it faces a different political calculus. While the ruling APC holds a majority, some senators are close to the presidency. A vocal minority may argue the change undermines executive authority. But with public opinion firmly behind the reform — a June 2025 survey by NOI Polls showed 78% of Nigerians support legislative oversight of EFCC appointments — pressure is mounting. Should both chambers approve it, the bill lands on President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s desk. His signature would make it law by early 2026.Why This Could Change Nigeria’s Fight Against Corruption
The EFCC investigates financial crimes across all 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory. It employs about 2,500 staff. Its annual budget exceeds ₦12 billion ($14 million). But its effectiveness has always been tied to its perceived independence. When the public believes the agency answers to the president, not the law, it loses moral authority. This bill doesn’t guarantee better investigations. But it creates the conditions for them. By removing the threat of arbitrary removal, it gives EFCC investigators room to work without fear. It signals to whistleblowers: your evidence matters more than who’s in the Aso Rock Villa. It also aligns Nigeria with global norms. The UN Convention Against Corruption, which Nigeria ratified in 2008, explicitly calls for "independent anti-corruption agencies." The IMF and World Bank have repeatedly flagged Nigeria’s executive control over the EFCC as a risk to foreign investment. "This isn’t just about one agency," said Dr. Amina Ibrahim, a governance expert at the Nigerian Institute of Social and Economic Research. "It’s about whether Nigeria still believes in institutions — or just in personalities."Frequently Asked Questions
How does this affect ordinary Nigerians?
If the bill becomes law, Nigerians could see more consistent, less politically motivated corruption investigations. Right now, many believe the EFCC targets opponents while ignoring allies. Requiring legislative approval for removal means the agency can’t be silenced simply because it’s inconvenient to those in power. This could encourage more people to report fraud, knowing the agency won’t be abruptly shut down.
What led to this change now?
Public frustration peaked after two high-profile EFCC chairmen were removed without clear justification — Lamorde in 2015 and Bawa in 2021. A 2024 survey showed 67% of Nigerians distrust the EFCC’s impartiality. The 10th National Assembly, which took office in 2023, made institutional reform a priority, with this bill being the centerpiece of its "Strengthening Anti-Corruption Institutions" package launched in January 2025.
Who opposes this bill, and why?
Some presidential allies in the Senate worry the change weakens executive control over key agencies. Critics argue it could lead to political gridlock, especially if the opposition controls one chamber. Others fear it might politicize the removal process itself — turning it into a partisan battle rather than a merit-based decision. But proponents say transparency outweighs these risks.
Will this apply to other agencies like the ICPC?
Not directly — but it sets a precedent. The same legislative package includes proposed reforms to the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) Act. If this bill passes, similar amendments to the ICPC are likely to follow. The goal is a unified standard: no single person should control Nigeria’s anti-corruption agencies.
What happens if the president refuses to sign the bill?
If President Tinubu vetoes the bill, it can still become law if both chambers override the veto with a two-thirds vote. That’s unlikely unless public pressure mounts. But the mere threat of a veto could force negotiations — possibly leading to a compromise, like requiring only Senate approval, or adding judicial review. The ball is now in the legislature’s court.
