It was his contention that by the provisions of Sections 6 and 7 of the EFCC (Establishment) Act, 2004, a threshold limit has been set on the powers or extent of powers of the EFCC to investigate, enforce and prosecute offenders, and is limited to Economic and Financial Crime provided in sections 14 – 18 and as define under Section 46 of the EFCC (Establishment) Act, 2004. He submitted that by the Exhibit ‘B’ annexed to the Applicant’s supporting affidavit, the petition written was against the Sokoto State Commissioner of commerce and Industries and not the Defendant. It was the Applicant’s counsel’s submission that by Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’ annexed to the Applicant’s supporting affidavit, it has become apparent that what the authors of the petition and the EFCC are seeking to do, is to dabble into an entire civil transaction that innures between the Applicant’s Company and Sokoto State Government. The learned silk further submitted that from the memorandum of understanding signed by the Sokoto State Government and Hijrah textiles Company Limited, the following becomes vivid:a. The money paid to Hijrah Textiles Company Limited is for the purchase of 40% equity shareholding in the Company which enabled Sokoto State Government to become a partner or a shareholder; b. The monies paid has nothing to do directly with the purchase of machineries or any development work, but rather after the payment of the 40% equity shareholding in the Company, it becomes the share holders responsibilities to provide funds as may be required to commence operations as well as to provide working capital for the trading cycles in the ratio of the ownership structure as agreed by the parties to wit; Hijrah Textile Company Limited to contribute Page 14 of 31