The Nigerian government has escalated its response to the recent #EndBadGovernance protests by freezing more than $37 million worth of cryptocurrency believed to be held in wallets associated with some of the protest organizers.
This action was taken following an order by the Federal High Court in Abuja, issued by Justice Emeka Nwite on July 9, 2024.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), which initiated the freezing order, claimed that the assets were proceeds of money laundering and terrorism financing. The court granted the order ex parte, a legal procedure where the decision is made without notifying or hearing from the affected parties.
Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 15 (Sept 9 – Dec 7, 2024) has started registrations; register today for early bird discounts.
Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass opens registrations here.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and invest in Africa’s finest startups here.
“That an order of this honourable court is hereby made freezing the wallet addresses/accounts stated in the schedule below, which wallets are owned by individuals currently being investigated for offences of money laundering and terrorism financing, pending the conclusion of the investigation,” ruled Justice Nwite after hearing the EFCC’s application.
The largest wallet frozen holds USDT 37 million (approximately $37 million), with three other wallets containing significantly smaller amounts. While the identities of the wallet owners were not disclosed in court filings, sources close to the investigation indicated that the accounts were traced to individuals suspected of organizing the #EndBadGovernance protests, which swept across multiple Nigerian cities from August 1 to 10, 2024.
These protests were sparked by widespread discontent over the rising cost of living, severe economic hardships, and a general sense of dissatisfaction with the government’s performance. As the protests gained momentum, the Nigerian government responded with a heavy hand.
Security forces reportedly killed more than 20 protesters, and in the capital city of Abuja, peaceful demonstrators and journalists—clearly identified by their press vests—were targeted with live ammunition. In the aftermath, arrests and prosecutions were swift, with police in Kano State and other regions detaining individuals suspected of looting during the demonstrations.
Additionally, seven Polish citizens were arrested in Kano for allegedly brandishing Russian flags, which the authorities linked to attempts to incite further unrest.
This crackdown on protest organizers is not without precedent. During the 2020 #EndSARS movement, which protested against police brutality and specifically targeted the notorious Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS), the government also employed financial measures to suppress dissent. The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), under the leadership of then-Governor Godwin Emefiele, froze 20 bank accounts linked to key figures in the #EndSARS movement.
Emefiele publicly labeled the protest organizers as sponsors of terrorism, a claim that significantly intensified the government’s efforts to discredit the movement. The CBN argued in court that the frozen funds were connected to terrorism financing, an assertion that played a critical role in securing a 90-day extension of the freezing order from the Federal High Court in Abuja.
However, the court later vacated the freezing order after legal negotiations between the CBN and the account holders’ legal representatives.
In both the #EndSARS and #EndBadGovernance cases, the courts have been criticized for failing to uphold the constitutional rights of Nigerian citizens to peaceful protest.
The Nigerian Constitution guarantees freedom of expression, assembly, and association, all of which are fundamental to a functioning democracy. Yet, these rights have been increasingly undermined by judicial actions that align more closely with the government’s agenda than with the protection of civil liberties.
Legal experts and human rights advocates have voiced concerns over the judiciary’s role in these instances, arguing that the courts have become complicit in the suppression of dissent. The use of ex parte orders to freeze assets without giving affected parties the opportunity to defend themselves has been particularly contentious. Critics argue that such orders circumvent due process and serve as a tool for the government to stifle opposition and dissent under the guise of national security.
The recent freezing of cryptocurrency assets linked to the #EndBadGovernance protests has only intensified these concerns. The EFCC’s application to freeze the assets was based on allegations of money laundering and terrorism financing, but the lack of transparency and the swift judicial approval of the freezing order has raised questions about the fairness of the process.
The use of financial measures to target protest organizers is seen by many as part of a broader strategy to dissuade Nigerians from exercising their constitutional rights to protest and to hold their government accountable.
The case has reignited the debate over the balance between national security and civil liberties, with many fearing that the government’s approach could set a dangerous precedent for the future of democratic expression in Nigeria. Rights advocates believes the growing pattern of financial repression, coupled with aggressive law enforcement tactics, paints a troubling picture of the state of civil rights in the country.