The Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a lawsuit filed by Intels Nigeria Limited seeking to prevent the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) from investigating transactions relating to an alleged $74 million debt owed to the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA).
Justice Emeka Nwite delivered the judgment on October 2, 2026, according to court documents reviewed by journalists.
The court ruled that the existence of a contract and an arbitration clause does not automatically prohibit a criminal investigation when allegations involve possible diversion or conversion of funds beyond a disagreement over outstanding payments.
However, the judge clarified that the EFCC cannot exercise its investigative powers to determine contractual rights or conclusively resolve disputed accounts between the parties.
Intels Sought To Halt Investigation Into Agency Agreement
Intels filed the amended suit, numbered FHC/ABJ/CS/164/2022, against the EFCC, its chairman, the NPA and the Attorney-General of the Federation.
Among other requests, the company asked the court to restrain the commission and its operatives from further demanding the alleged $74 million outstanding under its Managing Agency Agreement with the NPA.
The agreement was initially signed in 1998 and subsequently renewed in 2003, 2011 and 2018.
Intels argued that the invitations, arrests and questioning of its officials were connected to a civil contractual disagreement, describing the EFCC’s actions as harassment and an abuse of its investigative authority.
The company alleged that during questioning in April 2021, EFCC operatives attempted to interpret the contractual agreements, dismissed an ongoing reconciliation of accounts and maintained that their calculations revealed a shortfall of $74 million.
EFCC Cited Allegations Of Unremitted Revenue
The EFCC argued that the NPA’s petition contained allegations that warranted a criminal investigation.
According to the commission’s submissions before the court, the NPA alleged that $148,152,572.42 had not been remitted as of 2017.
The petition further alleged that certain third-party payers were instructed to transfer funds into an account belonging to Intels West Africa Limited in the United Kingdom instead of the account specified under the contractual arrangements.
The commission also referred to other allegations involving transactions and funds valued at up to $1,247,947,083.
These amounts represent allegations raised during the proceedings and should not be interpreted as established liabilities against Intels. Neither do they establish that the company owes all the sums mentioned.
Court Rules Contractual Disputes Do Not Prevent Criminal Investigations
Justice Nwite held that the existence of a contractual agreement does not automatically mean that every dispute arising from it must be treated exclusively as a civil matter.
The judge found that the complaint provided a sufficient factual basis to investigate allegations of fund diversion and conversion, which were distinguishable from a straightforward disagreement over an outstanding debt.
Consequently, he rejected Intels’ argument that the EFCC’s involvement was entirely an attempt to recover a civil debt.
The court also ruled that an arbitration clause, which provides a mechanism for resolving contractual disagreements, does not shield transactions from lawful criminal investigations.
EFCC Barred From Settling Contractual Accounts
Despite allowing the investigation to proceed, the court emphasised that the EFCC’s powers have legal limits.
The judgment does not authorise the commission to determine the contractual accounts between Intels and the NPA or prevent either party from pursuing arbitration and other available legal remedies.
This distinction means that a company can challenge disputed payments through contractual dispute-resolution procedures while specific transactions remain subject to investigation under the law.
For businesses involved in major commercial agreements, the case highlights the importance of distinguishing contractual disagreements from allegations that may warrant criminal investigation.
NPA Had Challenged Its Inclusion In The Lawsuit
The NPA had filed a preliminary objection in July 2025, arguing that the suit primarily concerned the EFCC’s actions and statutory powers.
The authority maintained that Intels had failed to establish a reasonable cause of action against it.
In his final decision, Justice Nwite concluded that Intels had not demonstrated sufficient grounds to justify the broad declarations and injunctions it sought. He subsequently dismissed the suit.
The ruling allows the EFCC to continue its investigation within the limits of its lawful authority. It does not constitute a criminal conviction or establish that the alleged $74 million debt is legally payable.
Disagreement Over Revenue Remittances Dates Back Years
Intels provides integrated logistics services to Nigeria’s oil and gas industry and has previously been involved in disputes with the NPA over boat pilotage revenue.
In 2017, the Federal Government ordered the cancellation of a monitoring and supervision contract amid allegations of unremitted revenue, which Intels disputed.
The company maintained at the time that the NPA owed it money.
Separately, former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar disclosed in 2023 that he had sold his interest in Intels in 2020 for $100 million and was no longer a shareholder in the company.
