Mercy Chinwo vs EeZee Tee: EFCC backs down as contract dispute rages on

In a turn of events at the Federal High Court in Ikoyi, Lagos, on Friday, January 24, 2025, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission officially withdrew its arrest warrant for Ezekiel Onyedikachi, aka EeZee Tee, the owner of EeZee Conceptz, gospel singer, Mercy Chinwo’s former record label.

The withdrawal follows a contentious legal battle between Chinwo and EeZee Tee, stemming from financial disputes under a 50/50 gross revenue-sharing agreement. EeZee Conceptz alleged that it had paid Chinwo $625,000.

During Friday’s proceedings, Justice Alexander Owoeye, presiding over the case, did not make any direct pronouncements regarding the financial dispute. However, after a thorough review of the facts, the EFCC, represented by its lead counsel, Bilikisu Buhari, formally requested the withdrawal of the arrest warrant.

EeZee’s counsel, Onyekachi Ubani (SAN), argued that the EFCC had overstepped its bounds in obtaining the initial arrest order. He maintained that the issue at hand was a contractual dispute rather than a criminal matter. He also stated that his client had filed a fundamental human rights enforcement suit in another court to halt his arrest and had lodged a preliminary objection to the charges against him.

Speaking to newsmen on the court premises, another member of EeZee Tee’s legal team, Maxwell Opara, said, “EFCC approached the court stating that our client evaded service and ran away from arrest. Based on that fact, the court granted an order that our client should be arrested. Upon receiving that information, we filed the necessary papers asking the court to set aside the order. We also put in motion a challenge to the arraignment of our client because this is a purely civil matter regulated by contract, and the said contract has not been invalidated or declared as an instrument of fraud before EFCC stepped in.

“We came this morning only for them to tell the court that they had just been served and needed time to respond. In the interest of justice, the court granted their application, which we did not object to. The court also made a consequential order directing that they should not pursue our client because we have filed our papers before the court and notified them of the nature of the matter, which they complied with.”

The case was adjourned to February 14, 2025, for further proceedings.