Adams Oshiomhole
EFCC has challenged
the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court in Abuja to compel it to
arrest and prosecute the Chairman of the All Progressives Congress, APC,
Adams Oshiomhole, over allegation that he diverted public funds to his
personal use.
The anti-graft agency, which admitted that it was in receipt of
petitions accusing Oshiomhole of complicity in acts of corruption,
however, said it was not under any obligation to report or give account
of its investigations to any individual or under a timeline within which
to carry out its functions.
EFCC therefore urged the high court to dismiss the suit that is
seeking to invoke an order of mandamus to compel it to initiate criminal
proceedings against the embattled APC Chairman.
The suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/628/2018, which was lodged before the
court by Edo State based cleric and activist, Bishop Osadolor Ochei, is
urging the court to declare that EFCC has a statutory duty to
investigate different petitions that contained allegations of financial
recklessness against Oshiomhole.
Specifically, the Applicant, alleged that Oshiomhole who was sued
as the 2nd Respondent, while in office as Edo state governor, acquired
properties in United States of America, South Africa and Dubai worth
billions of U.S. dollars and far in excess of his legitimate income.
He alleged before the court that the ex-governor built a sprawling
mansion worth more than N10billion in his home town known as Iyamho,
while in office.
According to the Applicant, “The said building was constructed
by Verissimo, a South African Architectural outfit. The said house of
the 2nd Respondent has swimming pools, water fountains, multiple
theatres for cinema and live performances, huge event halls, bridges,
manmade lake, lodges of different sizes amongst others.
“The said cost of building the mansion is well outside the 2nd
Respondent’s legitimate income. The 2nd Respondent’s lifestyle and
extent of the said property were not justified by his source of income”.
The Applicant told the court that he had on November 4, 2016, sent a
petition to the EFCC, detailing some corrupt practices he said the
ex-governor was involved in.
He maintained that EFCC’s refusal to act on petitions containing
“weighty allegations” against Oshiomhole, ran contrary to Section 15(5)
of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) which enjoined the State to
abolish corrupt practices.
Meanwhile, EFCC, in a preliminary objection that was signed by its
team of lawyers led by the Head of its Legal and Prosecutions
Department, Mr. G.K. Latona, aside challenging the locus- standi of the
Applicant to file the action, said it has discretion on how to use its
available manpower to carry out investigations into petitions submitted
to it.
“That investigation of cases is a holistic process which
entails time, resources, inter-agency cooperation, interview of
different persons and gathering of evidence over a long period of time
depending on the nature of the case and other variables”, it told the court.
Besides, the Commission, in an 11-paragraphed affidavit that was
deposed to by one of its staff, Mr. Yusuf Musa, told the court that it
conducts its investigations “professionally and discreetly” before the
arrest and prosecution of indicted persons.
“That 1st Respondent is a statutory body charged principally
with the responsibility of investigation and prosecution of economic and
financial crimes.
“That the 1st Respondent since its establishment In 2003 and
till date receives numerous petitions daily in its eleven offices in
various parts of the country against different persons both from within
and outside Nigeria.
“That investigation into these numerous petitions and criminal
complaints including intelligence reports are professionally and
methodically carried out by the 1st Respondent in line with its staff
strength and enabling statute.
“That 1st Respondent in carrying out its statutory functions of
investigation and prosecution of economic and financial crimes, attends
to all complaint discreetly and dispassionately without political,
ethnic, religious and other extraneous considerations.
“That the 1st Respondent had strengthened the war against
corruption with various initiatives amongst which is the Women Against
Corruption Coalition and the encouragement of Whistle Blower Policy
leading to several recoveries of illicit cash.
“That the 1st Respondent has discretion on how to use its
available manpower to carry out investigations into petitions submitted
to it.
“That Respondent is not under obligation to report or give
account of its investigations to any individual or under a timeline
within which to carry out its functions”, EFCC averred.
It said it would be in the interest of justice for the court to
strike out the suit which it said lacked competency and constituted an
abuse of the judicial process.
In a written address attached in support of the objection, EFCC,
argued that granting an order for Oshiomhole’s arrest and prosecution as
prayed for in the suit could occasion ”chaos and tumult” in the polity.
“We submit, with respect, that if this Honourable Court grants
the reliefs of the Applicant, especially as it affects the 1st
Respondent, that it wiIl open a deluge of applications with the over-all
aim of making the Applicant a stooge of litigant who desire to dictate
to the 1st Respondent how, when, where and against whom the 1st
Respondent should proceed in the discharge of its functions. The chaos
and tumult that this scenario may generate in the pointy can only be
Imagined.
“It is inimical to the tenor and tenets of a democratic society
for an agency such as the 1st Respondent to be directed or compelled to
discharge its functions in a particular way or manner, a fortiori the
1st Respondent cannot be directed or compelled to carry out
investigations or prosecution as dictated by the Applicant or anyone.
“We urge this Honourable Court to dismiss the Applicant’s application, same being unmeritorious and lacking in merit”, EFCC added.
Source: Vanguard.