The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has asked the Federal High Court in Abuja to reject a fundamental rights suit filed in the name of Lagos State Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu to stop possible arrest by the anti-graft agency.
In its counter-affidavit opposing the suit, the EFCC described the legal action as speculative and a mere conjecture.
EFCC filed its objection on 31 October, a day after the Lagos State Government disowned the suit on behalf of Mr Sanwo-Olu.
The Lagos State Government, through the Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Lawal Pedro, issued the denial in a statement maintaining that Governor Sanwo-Olu never engaged any lawyer to file such a suit and had no reason to do so.
“We need to clarify that Mr Babajide Sanwo-Olu, at no time, sued or briefed any legal practitioner to file a suit on his behalf concerning the above subject matter,” the statement read in part.
Our correspondent cannot immediately verify if the suit was withdrawn after the Lagos State Government distanced the governor from it on 30 October.
It is a severe professional violation for a lawyer to file a suit on behalf of a person without being engaged by the person.
Meanwhile, the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports seeing on Monday EFCC’s counter-affidavit filed in court on 31 October, a day after the suit was denied by the governor’s camp.
NAN further reported that when the suit last came up on 29 October, the judge, Joyce Abdulmalik, adjourned until 26 November.
NAN, however, gathered that though hearing notices had been served on the parties ahead of the 26 November proceeding, the suit may be withdrawn by Mr Ozurumba by then.
The newswire reported that Mr Sanwo-Olu, through his lawyer, Darlington Ozurumba, had sued the anti-graft agency as the sole defendant over alleged threat to arrest, detain and prosecute him after his tenure as governor.
The originating summons marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/773/2024 dated and filed on 6 June, raised seven questions and sought 11 prayers.
It sought a declaration that under and by virtue of the provisions of Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution, “the plaintiff, as a citizen of Nigeria, is entitled to right to private and family life as a minimum guarantee encapsulated under the Constitution of the Republic of Nigeria, 1999 before, during and after occupation of public office created by the Constitution.”
The suit also asked the court to declare that based on the community reading of the provisions of Sections 35(1) & (4) and 41(1) of the constitution, the threat of his investigation, arrest and detention by the EFCC during his tenure of office as governor is illegal.
The governor prayed the court to declare that the incessant harassment, threat of arrest and detention, against him upon the EFCC’s instigation by his political adversaries based on false and politically motivated allegation of corruption is a misuse of executive powers and abuse of public office.
Therefore, the suit sought an order restraining the EFCC from harassing, intimidating, arresting, detaining, interrogating or prosecuting him in connection with his tenure as the governor of Lagos State, among others.
However, the anti-corruption agency, opposed the suit in its counter affidavit filed by its lawyer, Hadiza Afegbua, on 31 October, a day the Lagos State Government distanced Mr Sanwo-Olu from the suit.
The filing said contrary to the governor’s claims, the EFCC neither threatened, invited nor took any step at all to encroach on his right to freedom of movement nor violated his right to private and family life and personal liberty.
In the application, Ufuoma Ezire, a superintendent and litigation secretary in the Legal and Prosecution Department of EFCC, who swore to the counter-affidavit, denied the claims in the suit.
The official said the commission was not investigating the governor and had never invited him or threatened to arrest any member of his staff, domestic or otherwise.
“That I know as a fact that the defendant invites members of the public for interview, interrogation or any engagement vide a written invitation, phone calls or text messages by any of its officers who shall introduce himself or herself by name, rank, designation, and Section to enable the invitee trace the officer easily.
“That no officer of the defendant could have invited the plaintiff or his aides without furnishing them with such detailed particulars of himself.
“That contrary to the depositions in paragraphs 5 of the plaintiff affidavit, the defendant did not intimidate, harass or threaten the plaintiff or subjected him to any trauma,” he said.
He said the agency was unaware of any threat to arrest Mr Sanwo-Olu’s aides.
He also stated that the anti-graft agency was not aware of the “accusation of maladministration or diversion of Lagos State’s funds nor is it aware of any likelihood of a breach of the applicant’s right to liberty or right to own movable and immovable properties in this case.”
“That the action of the plaintiff in this case is mere conjecture and speculations as there is no petition or any intel gathered before the defendant to warrant the men and officers of same to invite, threaten to arrest the plaintiff at the moment.
“That the entirety of the dispositions contained in the plaintiffs’ affidavit are not true, as the application is misconceived and brought in bad faith to mislead this honourable court.
“That the defendant is not in a position to deny or confirm the depositions in paragraphs 4 and 4(iii) as the defendant is not a party to the conversation between deponent and the plaintiff.
“That it will be in the interest of justice to refuse the reliefs sought by the plaintiff,” the counter-affidavit added.
NAN had earlier reported that when the matter was called for mention on 29 October Mr Ozurumba, who appeared for the governor, informed the court that he had withdrawn the earlier originating summons filed and replaced it with a new one.
The lawyer said the anti-graft agency had been duly served with the latest court documents.
However, EFCC’s counsel, Hadiza Afegbua, said she had yet to see the latest documents.
Besides, the proof of service of the processes was not in the court file and the judge adjourned the matter until 26 November for further mention
