Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Asiwaju Kunle Kalejaye, SAN, has argued that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) lacks the statutory authority to impose an outright ban on legal fees denominated in United States dollars in Nigeria.
Kalejaye made the argument in a jurisprudential assessment of the controversy surrounding foreign-currency legal fees, examining the issue against the backdrop of monetary regulation, freedom of contract, the rule of law and the EFCC’s statutory powers.
According to him, the legality of lawyers accepting legal fees in US dollars raises questions around Nigeria’s monetary sovereignty and the principle of pacta sunt servanda, which requires parties to honour contractual agreements.
He noted that Section 20 of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Act 2007 establishes the Naira as Nigeria’s domestic legal tender, but argued that Nigerian jurisprudence has distinguished between the currency used to determine the value of an obligation and the currency ultimately used to settle it.
Kalejaye cited Olaogun v. CBN (2015) and Kano Textile Printers Plc v. Globa S.A. (2002), arguing that agreements denominated in US dollars may remain valid where settlement is made in the Naira equivalent at the prevailing rate or through recognised banking channels.
On the EFCC’s role, the Senior Advocate maintained that the commission, being a creation of statute, has no inherent power to regulate Nigeria’s currency.
He argued that monetary regulation falls within the statutory responsibilities of the CBN and the legislative powers of the National Assembly, adding that any attempt by the EFCC to impose a blanket prohibition on dollar-denominated legal fees could raise questions of administrative law and ultra vires.
His comments come amid recent controversy following remarks attributed to the Acting Zonal Director of the EFCC Lagos Directorate, Bawa Kaltungo, who reportedly described the billing of legal fees in foreign currency as “unethical and illegal” and disclosed that two lawyers were being investigated over the practice.
The EFCC Chairman, Ola Olukoyede, subsequently clarified the commission’s position during a September 16, 2026, meeting with the newly elected Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) President, Oyinkansola Badejo-Okusanya, SAN.
According to the NBA, Olukoyede said he remains the commission’s sole official policy spokesman and that statements made by the Lagos Zonal Director should not be treated as a general policy position of the EFCC without clarification.
Kalejaye argued that the EFCC’s legitimate area of intervention in the matter should instead be considered within the framework of Nigeria’s anti-money laundering laws.
He pointed to the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, under which legal practitioners are treated as Designated Non-Financial Businesses and Professions (DNFBPs) for certain anti-money laundering purposes.
He further noted that the law imposes restrictions on cash transactions above prescribed thresholds, including transactions involving foreign-currency equivalents, while financial institutions and relevant regulatory bodies maintain oversight of such transactions.
However, he acknowledged that the application of anti-money laundering requirements to legal practitioners remains subject to questions surrounding attorney-client privilege and professional confidentiality.
Kalejaye concluded that, in his view, the EFCC’s authority in the controversy is principally connected to financial crime surveillance, anti-money laundering compliance and unlawful cash transactions, rather than an absolute prohibition on foreign-currency denomination of legal retainers.
“The true control of the process rests on compliance with financial regulations, not an absolute prohibition of the currency itself,” he said.
The legal opinion was signed by Asiwaju Kunle Kalejaye, SAN, of Eagle102.5 FM, Ilese-Ijebu.
