I have had to write on this issue prior to this time stating my opinion that the EFCC and indeed any other agency of government cannot, I repeat CANNOT put a restriction or cause a bank to put such restriction on a bank customers account without a valid and subsisting court order. This remains my view up till now. Indeed my position has become more entrenched after having explored several legal authorities on this matter both locally and in other climes. What I am about to share should have been a simple postulation that would not lend itself to ambiguity and varied opinions but for the confusion that often stems from the wrong notion that “once it was done one way prior to this time then that becomes the right thing”. Even then, there are already constitutional provisions, statutory authorities and decided cases that deal clearly with the issue of property rights and particularly the banker/customer relationship and the power to place a restriction on a customer’s account. I am writing this more detailed opinion in order to simplify the issues and elaborate more on areas which quite a good number have not quite considered in their analysis. Even after reading the express provisions of the statutes requiring the EFCC to obtain an order of court before placing a restriction on a bank customers account, one cannot fully grasp the jurisprudential basis for the statutory prescriptions without reference to the constitutional guarantee of right to property and banker/customer relationships.

First of all let us examine the constitutional basis of this postulation. Section 44 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) deals with the fundamental thus inalienable right to ownership of property.
44. (1) No moveable property or any interest in an immovable property shall be taken possession of compulsorily and no right over or interest in any such property shall be acquired compulsorily in any part of Nigeria except in the manner and for the purposes prescribed by a law that, among other things -
(a) requires the prompt payment of compensation therefore and
(b) gives to any person claiming such compensation a right of access for the determination of his interest in the property and the amount of compensation to a court of law or tribunal or body having jurisdiction in that part of Nigeria.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall be construed as affecting any general law.
(a) for the imposition or enforcement of any tax, rate or duty;
(b) for the imposition of penalties or forfeiture for breach of any law, whether under civil process or after conviction for an offence;
(c) relating to leases, tenancies, mortgages, charges, bills of sale or any other rights or obligations arising out of contracts.
(d) relating to the vesting and administration of property of persons adjudged or otherwise declared bankrupt or insolvent, of persons of unsound mind or deceased persons, and of corporate or unincorporate bodies in the course of being wound-up;
(e) relating to the execution of judgements or orders of court;
(f) providing for the taking of possession of property that is in a dangerous state or is injurious to the health of human beings, plants or animals;
(g) relating to enemy property;
(h) relating to trusts and trustees;
(i) relating to limitation of actions;
(j) relating to property vested in bodies corporate directly established by any law in force in Nigeria;
(k) relating to the temporary taking of possession of property for the purpose of any examination, investigation or enquiry;
(l) providing for the carrying out of work on land for the purpose of soil-conservation; or
(m) subject to prompt payment of compensation for damage to buildings, economic trees or crops, providing for any authority or person to enter, survey or dig any land, or to lay, install or erect poles, cables, wires, pipes, or other conductors or structures on any land, in order to provide or maintain the supply or distribution of energy, fuel, water, sewage, telecommunication services or other public facilities or public utilities.

Please note that the section specifically mentions MOVABLE and IMMOVABLE property. The money in a bank account comes under movable property. These rights are guaranteed. The right to property is the social-political principle that human beings may not be prohibited or prevented by anyone from acquiring, holding and trading (with willing parties) valued items not already owned by others. Such a right is, thus, inalienable and, if in fact justified, is supposed to enjoy respect and legal protection in a just human community.

Of particular reference is also Section 36(5) dealing with the right to presumption of innocence. Unless done via a court order, a restriction placed on the account of a bank customer on the basis of unproven allegations would amount to a derogation of the right to a presumption of innocence.

The Constitution being the supreme law of the land (see Sections 1(1) and 1(3) of the 1999 Constitution) has made clear provisions on inalienable proprietary rights and the presumption of innocence. Though these rights are not absolute, the restriction of an account of a customer without the order of court does not feature in the exceptions, not even as provided in Section 45 of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution.

Even in the sphere of international treaties the right to property is well entrenched
Article 17 of United Nations Declaration of Human Rights provides:
"(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property"
Article 14 of the African Charter of Human and Peoples Rights provides:
"The right to property shall be guaranteed. It may only be encroached upon in the interest of public need or in the general interest of the community and in accordance with the provisions of appropriate laws."
Now let us examine the Banker/Customer relationship and understand why not only the law enforcement agency but even the bank that complied with such illegal order will be held liable for a breach of the customers rights. What nature does the relationship of the customer and the banker take?
The relationship between banker and customer is basically that of a debtor and creditor. When a customer opens an account with a bank and if the account has a credit balance, then the relationship is that of debtor (banker) and creditor (customer) his is because the banker owes money to the customer. The customer has the right to demand back his money whenever he wants it from the banker, and the banker must repay the balance to the customer. A customer remains a creditor until there is credit balance in his account with the banker. The customer's status is that of an unsecured creditor of the banker. A customer (creditor) does not get any charge over the assets of the banker (debtor). This changes in case of loan or advance by the bank, the banker is the creditor, and the customer is the debtor because the customer owes money to the banker.
The banker and the customer also share other relationships. These are:
Agent and Principal relationship – where the bank acts as agent of the customer
Trustee and Beneficiary – the bank holds customers property in trust
Bailor and Bailee - Bailment is a contract for delivering goods by one party to another to be held in trust for a specific period and returned when the purpose is ended. The banker is the bailee.
Licensor and Licensee
Advisor and Client
Hypothecator and Hypothecatee.
The relationship of debtor creditor is also the basis of the banks obligation to honour cheques. As a debtor, the bank has no right to act upon the request of a third party to default in its obligation to pay the debt owed the creditor-customer, except upon a court order. If you owe me money, the EFCC, police or any other third party has no right to tell you not to pay me the money you owe me because they allege I am a criminal. They may charge me to court if they have a case against me but they cannot tell you to hold unto my money. That would be the height of absurdity!!
Again other important incidents of the banker/customer relationship worthy of mention are the Trustee relationship, where the bank is a trustee of the customers funds; the Agency relationship where the Banker may act as agent of the customer; and the Bailment relationship where the Bank acts as Bailee. These further explain how entrenched the right of the customer is.
In FIDELITY BANK PLC vs. BAYUJA VENTURES LIMITED & BASHIR JIMOH [2012] All FWLR [PART 646] C.A 456; 2011/CA (12) LEDLR-1 The Court Appeal, sitting in Lagos ruled that banks have no right to freeze their customers account without a proper order of court. The court further ruled that there is no law that confers power on banks to freeze a customer's account. Justice Sidi Dauda Bage of the appellate court delivered the judgment, upholding the judgment of Justice Iyabo Kasali of Lagos High Court who had delivered the same judgment at the lower court on September 29, 2005. In concurring with the lead judgment, Justice Ogunwumiju said: It amounts to nothing more than a resort to self help which is unacceptable, and which amounts to lawlessness and brigandage for the appellant to unilaterally freeze the account of the respondents.
Then why do banks refuse to pay a customer when his signature is irregular, or account is dormant or he has no BVN?
This is one question that its wrong answer has tended to confuse even some of the acclaimed legal minds in Nigeria.
A bank/banker has the obligation to pay the proper customer and not a wrong person.In ascertaining the proper customer the bank is required to do what is reasonably and legally necessary in order to ensure that the right person is paid. Where it is not sure of the right person or the law in ascertaining that has not been complied with, the bank can withhold payment but once they ascertain that within reasonable limits and the customer has credit standing in his favour, the bank must pay the customer.
Where a customer is owing a bank and fails to pay, the bank may also have a lien on the customers money within its possession if it is clearly shown to be owned by the customer solely and not with another person. Thus when Mr. A has two accounts with Crush Bank and owes the bank on one, the bank has a lien on the money in the second account. But it must be shown clearly to be owned by Mr A, and again Mr A doesn’t own the money jointly with another person. The extent of the lien is limited to the amount of the debt. The bank also has to give the customer prior notice. This lies in the realm of civil law rather than criminal law.
This is entirely different from placing a restriction on an account based on a transaction of the customer with a third party or the complaint of such third party. In such a case a court order must be obtained to restrict the account because the third party is not a party to the banker/customer relationship which exists between the bank and its customer. Again in criminal allegations, because of the presumption of innocence the person or authority seeking to restrict a customers account must go a step further by obtaining an order of court to do so.
Now to the power of the EFCC to place or order a restriction on a bank account. Specifically, Section 34 (1) of the EFCC Act with the heading: "Freezing order on banks or other, other financial institutions", provides as follows:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment or law, the Chairman of the Commission or any officer authorised by him may, if satisfied that the money in the account of a person is made through the commission of an offence under this Act and or any of the enactments specified under section 7 (2) (a)-(f) of this Act, apply to the Court ex-parte for power to issue an order as specified in Form B of the Schedule to this Act, addressed to the manager of the bank or any person in control of the financial institution or designated non-financial institution where the account is or believed by him to be or the head office of the bank, other financial institution or designated non-financial institution to freeze the account."
Please note that the use of “may” in the above provision relates to the choice on whether to seek to place the account in question under restriction and not the choice of whether or not to go to court to achieve that. Thus EFCC may decide not to seek a restriction on an account but cannot seek to bypass the court to achieve that.
Note also that such order is “exparte” which means it is without notice to the other party and can only last for 7 (seven) days, subject to a renewal for another 7 (seven) days i.e. total of 14 days. I think this is fair in that it allows the investigation to flow seamlessly while also giving an opportunity for the order to be lapse or be set aside on the application of the person said to be under investigation. In this way fair hearing is balanced with the power to investigate.

#Copied.
Found this elucidating piece and decided to share it here. We all learn everyday.

am not in support of freezing someone's account without a valid court order.

but someone should summarise this text book write up(copied like he said) for me.

You tried bro. But hope ain't surprised that nobody has commented on it for or against?

Well, thats Nairaland for you, you bring a wonderful topic for people to read and brainstorm, but Lai Lai, no one would, eve the mods sef. But if it tribal sentiment, afonja, wailers and zombies, show of massive boobs, fast, na FP be that.

The more I think about it, the more I weep for the country, cos that shows us how vain we the youths are.

Bro, kpele, maybe Someday we would get there.

OP, nice one but we all know what is happening presently, EFCC has become a vendetta tool, God help us.

Emmaoga:
am not in support of freezing someone's account without a valid court order.

but someone should summarise this text book write up(copied like he said) for me.

If you can't read this , I wonder have you read to pass through school and if a graduate , how you read to make progress or update your self in life. Enough!

EFCC has the full powers to, as long as a court order on the interim forfeiture was taken.

The same is obtainable in other climes that you referred to.