"The 2nd Respondent possess wide ranging powers to investigate allegations of financial crimes pursuant to Section 7 of the E.F.C.C. Act. Section 7(1) (a) of the Act provides thus: - "7(1) The commission has power to - (a) Cause investigations to be conducted as to whether any person, corporate body or organization has committed any offence under this Act or other Law relating to Economic and Financial Crimes." See: MR. FELIX ORIYOMI EWULO V. ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION & ORS (2015) LPELR - 40912 (CA) per ABUBAKAR JCA (on pages 34 - 35 paragraphs A -D); ALH. TUKUR DANFULANI V. ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION & ORS (2015) LPELR - 25899 (CA) per ADEFOPE-OKOJIE JCA (pages 11 - 17 paragraphs D - A). In ORJI UZO KALU V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & ORS (2016) LPELR - 40108 (SC) the Supreme Court held per GALADIMA JSC on pages 15 - 16 paragraphs D - B thus: - "Sections 6 (m) and 46 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment), Act vest in EFCC the function and duty of investigating and prosecuting persons reasonably suspected to have committed economic and financial crimes. For a person to rush to Court to place a clog or shield against criminal investigation and prosecution is a clear interference with the powers given by law and the Constitution to EFCC in the conduct of criminal investigation and prosecution. It is clearly an abuse of due process of the law. See ABACHA V. FRN (2014) 6 NWLR {Pt. 1402} 43 at 112; DARIYE V. FRN (2015) 2 SCM P. 46 at 68. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ANAMBRA V. UBA (2005) 15 NWLR {Pt. 947} 44 at 67." Upon considering the facts and circumstances of this suit and the holding by the Apex Court, it is clear as crystal that the 1st Respondent instituted this suit before the lower Court in a futile attempt to cripple the efforts of the 2nd Respondent from investigating its shady acts of issuing dud cheques and trying to divert the amount her Bank collected from the Appellant, for other purposes. This action by the 1st Respondent tantamount to interference with the powers of the 2nd Respondent from performing its legitimate duties of investigating and prosecuting financial crimes, which is an abuse of due process of the law. It is my holding therefore that the petition written by the Appellant to the 2nd Respondent on the shady and questionable behavior of the 1st Respondent, is legal and legitimate since the 2nd Respondent has the power to investigate and prosecute the 1st Respondent, the Bank and guarantors of the loan secured from the Appellant. The fundamental rights of the 1st Respondent was not infringed."

Per SANGA, J.C.A. IN  RIVERS STATE MICROFINANCE AGENCY v. MRS. DIALABA S. D. ISOKARIARI & ANOR (2018) LPELR-44863(CA)