The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is a Nigerian anti-graft agency established with a goal to curb the spread of economic and financial crimes in the country. One of the EFCC's tools to prevent suspects from withdrawing funds from their bank accounts is the Post No Debit (PND) directive. This directive is placed on an account alleged to have been involved in financial crimes, and it prevents the account holder from making any debit transactions, including withdrawals. In this topic, we will discuss the timeframe within which the EFCC can place a PND on an alleged crime-involved account and the implications of non-compliance.

According to Section 34 of the EFCC Act of 2004, the EFCC can instruct a bank to place a PND on an account allegedly involved in criminal activity for 72 hours. During this time, the EFCC can conduct investigations without interference from the account holder. After the 72-hour period elapses, the EFCC can apply to a court to extend the PND duration.

In case of non-compliance with the EFCC directive, the bank risks facing severe sanctions and fines. Not only may the bank's reputation be damaged, but it may also suffer a loss of its operational license. It is, therefore, essential for banks to comply immediately with any EFCC directives for PND placements.

It's worth noting that the PND directive is limited to the specific account specified by the EFCC. The directive does not affect any other accounts, subsidiaries, or branches of the account holder. However, if the EFCC finds that multiple accounts are involved, it may issue a directive for each account separately.

If you find yourself in a situation where a PND has been placed on your account, it is advisable to consult with a legal representative as soon as possible. The law provides you with the right to challenge the PND placement and provide evidence to refute the allegations. However, it's important to work with a legal representative who is knowledgeable in banking and finance laws to ensure the best possible outcome.

The PND directive is a powerful tool in combating financial crimes, and as such, it's crucial that banks comply with any EFCC directives. Banks should always be diligent in their monitoring of clients' activities and report any suspicious activities to the EFCC as required. On the other hand, account holders should be aware of their legal rights and seek legal counsel to challenge wrongful PND placements. With everyone playing their role, we can help ensure a safer and more just financial system in Nigeria.


But what are the rights of the bank customer in the event that the PND restriction exceeds 72 hours without a court order extending it?


In the recent case of NPG FARMS (NIG) LTD v. ZENITH BANK PLC (2022) LPELR-57548(CA), the Court of Appeal was of the decision that a post no debit restriction that exceeds the legally allowed 72hrs without a court order extending same is illegal, ultra vires the provision of the law and more importantly, a fundamental breach of the customer's right.

But before you begin ask why the court go talk something like this, let's explore the facts that culminated in this case.

In this case, the Appellant, who was the Plaintiff/Applicant at the trial court, instituted an action against the Respondent at the trial Court via an originating motion alleging the violation of his right to enjoyment of its property as entrenched in Section 44 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).

The Appellant sought a declaration that the posting of the Post No Debit (PND) on the Applicant's account with the Respondent bank without any valid or subsisting Order of Court to that effect amounts to a violation of the Applicant's right to enjoyment of its property as entrenched in Section 44 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and Article 14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act LFN 2004 amongst other declaratory reliefs and orders as well as general damages.

The Appellant lost the case at the trial court. But he won at the court of Appeal, which vacated the judgment of the trial court, entered judgment in his favour, and awarded the sum of 5 million naira as general damages and 250k as cost of action against the bank for illegally placing a continuing post no debit restriction on the Appellant's bank account without due process of law.


BluntCrazeMan,IconicR, Fergie001, lhordspy, Lotanna2, Racoon, LegendHero, Helinues,Dtruthspeaker.

dalitigator:
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is a Nigerian anti-graft agency established with a goal to curb the spread of economic and financial crimes in the country. One of the EFCC's tools to prevent suspects from withdrawing funds from their bank accounts is the Post No Debit (PND) directive. This directive is placed on an account alleged to have been involved in financial crimes, and it prevents the account holder from making any debit transactions, including withdrawals. In this topic, we will discuss the timeframe within which the EFCC can place a PND on an alleged crime-involved account and the implications of non-compliance.

[
According to Section 34 of the EFCC Act of 2004, the EFCC can instruct a bank to place a PND on an account allegedly involved in criminal activity for 72 hours. During this time, the EFCC can conduct investigations without interference from the account holder. After the 72-hour period elapses, the EFCC can apply to a court to extend the PND duration.

In case of non-compliance with the EFCC directive, the bank risks facing severe sanctions and fines. Not only may the bank's reputation be damaged, but it may also suffer a loss of its operational license. It is, therefore, essential for banks to comply immediately with any EFCC directives for PND placements.

It's worth noting that the PND directive is limited to the specific account specified by the EFCC. The directive does not affect any other accounts, subsidiaries, or branches of the account holder. However, if the EFCC finds that multiple accounts are involved, it may issue a directive for each account separately.

If you find yourself in a situation where a PND has been placed on your account, it is advisable to consult with a legal representative as soon as possible. The law provides you with the right to challenge the PND placement and provide evidence to refute the allegations. However, it's important to work with a legal representative who is knowledgeable in banking and finance laws to ensure the best possible outcome.

The PND directive is a powerful tool in combating financial crimes, and as such, it's crucial that banks comply with any EFCC directives. Banks should always be diligent in their monitoring of clients' activities and report any suspicious activities to the EFCC as required. On the other hand, account holders should be aware of their legal rights and seek legal counsel to challenge wrongful PND placements. With everyone playing their role, we can help ensure a safer and more just financial system in Nigeria.


But what are the rights of the bank customer in the event that the PND restriction exceeds 72 hours without a court order extending it?


In the recent case of NPG FARMS (NIG) LTD v. ZENITH BANK PLC (2022) LPELR-57548(CA), the Court of Appeal was of the decision that a post no debit restriction that exceeds the legally allowed 72hrs without a court order extending same is illegal, ultra vires the provision of the law and more importantly, a fundamental breach of the customer's right.

But before you begin ask why the court go talk something like this, let's explore the facts that culminated in this case.

In this case, the Appellant, who was the Plaintiff/Applicant at the trial court, instituted an action against the Respondent at the trial Court via an originating motion alleging the violation of his right to enjoyment of its property as entrenched in Section 44 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).

The Appellant sought a declaration that the posting of the Post No Debit (PND) on the Applicant's account with the Respondent bank without any valid or subsisting Order of Court to that effect amounts to a violation of the Applicant's right to enjoyment of its property as entrenched in Section 44 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and Article 14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act LFN 2004 amongst other declaratory reliefs and orders as well as general damages.

The Appellant lost the case at the trial court. But he won at the court of Appeal, which vacated the judgment of the trial court, entered judgment in his favour, and awarded the sum of 5 million naira as general damages and 250k as cost of action against the bank for illegally placing a continuing post no debit restriction on the Appellant's bank account without due process of law.


BluntCrazeMan,IconicR, Fergie001, lhordspy, Lotanna2, Racoon, LegendHero, Helinues,Dtruthspeaker.

Rubbish! Another attempt of bandits pretending to have respect for the natural rights of the people they used force and harm and imprisonment and death to subject the conqered to obey them.

Rights under legal are whatever your bandit rulers choose to give you.

Whereas under Law, PND would have been restricted only to the amount under investigation requiring the bank to immediately apologetically notifying the affected customer that that amount in his account is under dispute and investigation and that he should come contest it.