By Sar Terver
A series of armed raids conducted by operatives of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) at Joyous Hotel in Nyanya, Abuja, has raised troubling legal and ethical questions about due process, property rights, and the limits of the Commission’s powers.
Chaotic scenes unfolded, according to Hotel staff and the owner who allege that the EFCC broke into the premises without clear identification, destroyed property, assaulted workers, and carted away equipment critical to business operations — all while operating under what they describe as a veil of unmarked uniforms and unannounced authority.
According to the EFCC, the operation on June 30, 2025, was based on “actionable intelligence” suggesting the presence of cybercrime suspects at the premises.
In a terse statement, the Commission confirmed that 74 individuals were arrested for their alleged involvement in internet fraud.
The Commission also stated that 86 mobile phones, a pistol, and three motorcycles were recovered during the operation and that the suspects would be charged in court in due course.
However, interviews with multiple staff of Joyous Hotel, conducted separately and corroborated by the hotel’s owner, paint a disturbing picture that suggests procedural irregularities and potential violations of civil and commercial rights.
Vivian Azubuike, a Supervisor at the hotel, recounted how men stormed the premises around 2 a.m., forced their way into the control room, seized CCTV footage, broke down doors, and physically assaulted employees.
“They introduced themselves as EFCC,” Azubuike said. “They broke three doors. They took two people away and slapped my porter.”
Another staff member, Apeh Monday, echoed the same account, stating that the operatives “were not in uniform,” and slapped staff who inquired about their identity. He alleged that “One guest even jumped through a window thinking it was armed robbers. He broke his leg.”
These testimonies raise important legal questions about the standard procedure for conducting arrests and searches, particularly in private establishments like hotels.
Under Nigerian law, law enforcement agencies are required to present a warrant when entering private property, except in exigent circumstances, such as the immediate pursuit of a fleeing suspect.
In this case, neither the hotel staff nor the owner reported being shown any warrant or legal authorization for the raid.
The hotel’s owner, Mr. Gabriel Ogwuche Ogah, has taken the matter to court, challenging both the legality and the manner of the operation. “We pay our taxes. We are registered under the Nasarawa State Government, not the FCT.
“We have not committed any known offense to warrant this kind of destruction,” he said. Ogah also questioned the EFCC’s claim that a firearm was recovered from the premises.
“If it was truly recovered here, let them show us the footage”, he said. “They took all our CCTV machines. One was hidden and captured armed men, but they took the rest”.
One of the more serious allegations is the physical damage to property, including broken doors, damaged control systems, and the alleged disappearance of customers’ and workers’ personal belongings.
If true, these actions may amount to unlawful destruction of property and theft under Nigerian criminal law. The EFCC’s mandate, while broad, does not exempt its operatives from civil or criminal liability for such actions.
There is also the matter of evidentiary integrity. By confiscating all CCTV footage and records without providing a receipt or allowing the hotel to retain a copy, the EFCC not only disrupted business operations but also deprived the hotel of its own evidence.
Without the footage, the hotel is unable to confirm who was arrested, whether the raid was confined to its premises, or whether the alleged firearm and motorcycles were actually discovered there.
The Commission’s brief statement fails to address these critical concerns. It does not state whether a warrant was obtained, whether the operatives formally identified themselves, or whether force was used proportionately.
The lack of transparency leaves room for speculation—including concerns about mistaken identity, wrongful targeting, and possible abuse of power.
From a legal standpoint, the EFCC’s reported removal of evidence (CCTV equipment and records), forced entry without uniformed officers or warrants, and alleged physical assault of staff could lead to civil litigation and criminal scrutiny.
Section 37 of the Nigerian Constitution guarantees the privacy of homes and correspondence, while the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) outlines the proper procedures for search and arrest. Any deviation without just cause may constitute a violation.
The implications of these events extend beyond legal interpretation. For residents of Abuja and hotel operators across Nigeria, the raid signals a potential threat to business confidence and personal security.
If operatives indeed acted without uniforms or warrants and seized evidence without documentation, the pressing question becomes: How can one differentiate between an authorized government operation and criminal impersonation?
There is also the issue of reputational damage. The EFCC publicly linked the hotel’s name to cybercrime and criminality.
But Ogah insists that guests were not screened before the arrests and that the hotel maintains a structured security protocol involving bag checks and metal detectors.
He queried, “How can I know that the people they arrested were truly our guests?” he asked. “Some of our customers pay monthly. Now they have fled and taken our money. We cannot even close our account for that day”.
At the heart of the matter lies the tension between law enforcement efficiency and procedural fairness. While the EFCC is empowered to investigate and prosecute financial crimes, it is bound by established rules of engagement.
Whether the operation at Joyous Hotel constitutes lawful enforcement or an overreach will ultimately be determined in court.
Until then, one thing is certain; the raid has not only left a hotel in ruins, it has posed questions and doubts about accountability, legal oversight, and the balance between state security and individual rights in Nigeria’s ongoing fight against Cybercrime.
