the Respondents are saying the applicant was detained only from 9th – 16th March, 2020. The question are will therefore ask, is the detention of the applicant by the Respondents within the period admitted by the respondents in compliance with the law? By paragraph 5 of the Respondents’ counter affidavit, the respondents averred that the detention of the applicant was necessitated by a complaint received by the office in connection with the offences of conspiracy, embezzlement, stealing of public funds, money laundering, contract scam among others associated with a contract of supply of motorcycles between the applicant’s company AMBASAM and Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs of an undisclosed state. It therefore follows that the offences of conspiracy, embezzlement, stealing of public funds, money laundering were all frame from the supply of motorcycle Contract between the applicant’s company mentioned above and the Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs of an undisclosed state. In the case of EFCC V. Diamond Bank PLC {2018} LPELR 44217, Sidi Dauda Bage JSC {as he then was}, held that:“---- The powers conferred on the applicant I.e the EFCC to receive complaints and prevent and/ or fight the Commission of Financial Crimes in Nigeria pursuant to section 6 (b) of the EFCC Act, does not extend to the investigation ----- of disputes arising or resulting from simple contracts or civil transactions as in this case. 12