Rebecca’s lawyers petition UN, EU, US over alleged EFCC rights violations

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has come under mounting international scrutiny following the submission of coordinated human rights petitions to the United Nations (UN), the European Union (EU), the United States Embassy, the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission of the U.S. Congress, the British High Commission and the Canadian High Commission.

The petitions challenge the alleged treatment of Abuja resident, Mrs. Rebecca Omokamo Godwin-Isaac, during an ongoing property dispute, with her legal team accusing the anti-graft agency of violating her fundamental rights and seeking urgent international intervention.

The petitions, prepared by the law firm of Chief C.A.S. Oshomegie, SAN & Oshomegie & Co., and signed by Emaya J. Alibeku, Esq., on behalf of the chambers, accuse the anti-graft agency of subjecting Rebecca, members of her household and workers to conditions that allegedly violate both Nigeria’s Constitution and several international human rights conventions.

The firm stated that it is acting as solicitors to Mrs. Rebecca Omokamo Godwin-Isaac and her family.

In the petitions, the legal team stressed that they were not asking the international bodies to interfere with any criminal investigation or determine ownership of the disputed property.

Rather, they appealed for urgent humanitarian intervention to prevent what they described as a life-threatening situation allegedly created by the continued occupation of the residence by EFCC operatives.

According to the petitions, EFCC operatives have maintained physical control of Rebecca’s family residence located at Plot 4022, Guzape, Abuja, since June 29, 2026.

During that period, the lawyers alleged that water supply, electricity and cooking gas to the residence were disconnected, while access to food, drinking water, medication and other basic necessities was either denied or severely restricted.

The petitions further alleged that Rebecca had been unable to cook, preserve food or maintain normal living conditions because of the disconnection of essential utilities.

Food stored in refrigerators and freezers reportedly spoiled, creating what the lawyers described as an unhealthy and unbearable environment within the residence.

They also claimed that Rebecca’s husband, children, relatives and legal representatives had either been denied access to her or permitted only brief, tightly controlled visits, while her children had been displaced from their family home.

The legal team argued that the matter had transcended an ordinary dispute over property ownership and had become a question of the protection of human life, dignity and the rule of law.

One of the most serious allegations contained in the petitions is that a worker inside the premises reportedly collapsed after prolonged deprivation of adequate food and water.

The lawyers described the incident as evidence that the humanitarian situation had become critical, warning that unless urgent intervention was secured, additional occupants could suffer grave injury or even death.

They maintained that no law enforcement operation should expose individuals to hunger, thirst or deprivation of medical care.

A major plank of the petitions challenges the legal basis upon which the EFCC continues to occupy the residence.

According to Oshomegie’s chambers, the commission relied on an interim ex parte forfeiture order granted on February 12, 2026, but that order, under the law, had a lifespan of only 14 days and expired without renewal before the EFCC commenced its operation at the property on June 29.

The lawyers contended that no fresh order authorising continued occupation of the residence was obtained before the operation began. They argued that if the commission possesses such an order, it should make it public.

The petitions further stated that on July 3, 2026, the Federal High Court ordered all parties to maintain status quo ante bellum pending determination of the substantive proceedings.

According to the legal team, the order was served on and acknowledged by the EFCC, yet the commission allegedly failed to restore the conditions that existed before its operation, including the restoration of utilities and unrestricted access to the residence by family members and lawyers.

The lawyers argued that disagreement with a court order cannot justify ignoring it, insisting that any agency dissatisfied with a judicial decision must seek redress through the courts rather than through continued physical occupation of disputed property.

Addressing the ownership dispute itself, the petitions stated that Rebecca purchased the Guzape land from Architect Richard Idakwogi John of Rychado Homes, paid valuable consideration and subsequently constructed the residence with her own resources.

The legal team noted that ownership claims relating to the property remain before competent Nigerian courts and argued that those proceedings should be allowed to run their course without exposing the occupants to hardship before a final judicial determination is made.

They further contended that Rebecca had not been convicted of any criminal offence and that no court had awarded ownership of the completed residence to any other claimant.

In the petitions, the lawyers challenged the EFCC to explain the legal basis for the continued occupation of the residence, the alleged disconnection of water, electricity and cooking gas, the reported restriction of access to food and medication, the limitation placed on family and legal visits, and the commission’s compliance with the Federal High Court’s order.

They argued that the existence of a criminal investigation does not suspend constitutional guarantees protecting the rights to life, dignity, liberty and fair hearing.

The petitions also warned of the psychological impact of the dispute on Rebecca’s children, saying they had been displaced from their home and deprived of normal access to their mother despite not being parties to the dispute.

According to the legal team, children should not bear the consequences of a legal disagreement between adults or government institutions.

As part of the reliefs sought, Oshomegie’s chambers called on the international organisations to engage Nigerian authorities, including the Attorney-General of the Federation, the EFCC Chairman and the National Human Rights Commission, to facilitate an independent humanitarian assessment of everyone inside the residence.

The lawyers also requested the immediate restoration of water, electricity, cooking gas, food, medical assistance, unrestricted family access and confidential access to legal counsel.

They further urged full compliance with the Federal High Court’s order, an independent investigation into the reported collapse of the worker, and protection against any form of retaliation against Rebecca, her family, witnesses and legal representatives.

The petitions concluded that the dispute should ultimately be resolved by the courts, but argue that no property litigation should result in the deprivation of fundamental human rights or place lives at risk.