Connect with us

Law

Kogi: How Agbakoba Goofed on EFCC’s power to probe State’s finances, by spokesperson

Published

on

Share this story

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission has reacted to what it has described as indecorous and utterly irresponsible attempt by the Former President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), DrOlisa Agbakoba to dress it in the borrowed garb of a lawless entity and a meddlesome interloper, who has no business probing the stealing of Kogi State resources.

Agbakoba had taken a swipe at the EFCC over what he described as unwarranted media trial of the Kogi State Government as regards the fresh case against a nephew of the Governor and the previous N20 billion bail-out controversy.

Agbakoba, who spoke at a press conference on “The Rule of Law in Nigeria Today”, held in Lagos on Sunday, specifically noted that the EFCC was turning itself into a one-man Robin Hood riot gang, which must not be allowed.

According to him, how a state spends its money should not be the business of the anti-graft agency.

But in a swift reaction through a statement issued by the commission’s head of media and publicity, Wilson Uwujaren, EFCC said the manner in which “Agbakoba delivered his message in the so-called media briefing, he sounded more like a spokesperson of the Kogi State Government than an advocate of the rule of law.”

Nwujaren said it is morally reprehensible for a learned silk of Agbakoba’s calibre to promote the view that state governments cannot be questioned on how they use the resources of their states, and that law enforcement organizations cannot investigate cases of alleged wanton theft of Kogi state’s resources.

“In all his tirades, no evidence was presented to support his claim that the EFCC has been lawless, nor did he mention any law which the Commission’s investigation of the finances of the Kogi State Government violated.

“Instead, his refrain was to a non-extent decision of the Supreme Court which he also failed to electorate upon.

“But it is important to state that contrary to the views of Agbakoba, the Supreme Court at no time delivered any judgement which forbids the EFCC from investigating fraud cases involving a state government. The learned counsel ought to have known that the Apex Court of the land as far back as 2010 in JOLLY TEVORU NYAME V FRN (2010) 11 NWLR (PT.1193)344 held that the ‘claim that the money belongs to Taraba State and that the state has exclusive claim on it to the exclusion of any other authority by virtue of section 120 of the 1999 constitution cannot stand.’

“Furthermore, Agbakoba’s erroneous views ought to be tempered by the decision of the Supreme Court in A.G ONDO STATE v. A.G., FEDERATION (2002) 9 NWLR [pt.772] page 222 at page 308 where the Honourable Court held: ‘It has been pointed out that the provisions of the Act impinge on the cardinal principle of federalism, namely, the requirement of equality and autonomy of the State Government and non-interference with the functions of State Government. This is true, but as seen above, both the Federal and State Government share the power to legislate in order to abolish corruption and abuse of office. If this is a breach of the principle of Federalism, then, I am afraid, it is the Constitution that makes the provisions that have facilitated the breach of the principle. As far as the aberration is supported by the provision of the Constitution, I think it cannot rightly be argued that an illegality has occurred by the failure of the Constitution to adhere to the cardinal principles which are at best ideals to follow or guidance for an ideal situation.’

“Lastly, the learned Silk should also know that his views are totally unsupported by the facts, circumstances of Kogi’s case and the decision of the Court of Appeal in KALU V FRN & (2012) LPELR- 9287 (CA) which decision knocked the bottom out of the contention of Agbakoba.

“From the decisions of the Appellate Court it is clear that whilst the State Assemblies can investigate finances of their states, they are not empowered to investigate and prosecute fraud cases; that responsibility lies with agencies such as the EFCC,” the statement said.

EFCC noted with concern that “had this view been promoted by any other lawyer than Agbakoba who rose to national prominence as advocate of civil liberties and anti-corruption, it would have been pardonable.

“When men who are seen as conscience of the nation begin to approbate and reprobate on an issue, it is almost certain they are driven by motives which could be far from altruistic.

“Despite not being counsel to the Kogi State Government, Agbakoba had no scruples using the media to pontificate on a matter that is currently before a court of competent justification. This, to him, does not amount to a media trial of the EFCC!

“In his game of ostrich, Agbakoba continually harped on Section 46 of the EFCC Act but ignores the provisions of Section 7 of the same Act and various provisions of the Money Laundering Prevention and Prohibition Act, the Advance Fee Fraud Other Fraud Related Offences Act, etc., which gives the Commission power to investigate all fraud cases.

“Why is Agbakoba so jittery about the robust response of the EFCC to corruption that he would openly incite the next administration against the Commission? That essentially was the agenda when he said: ‘So the candidate (2023 election candidates) must tell us what they are going to do with all these agencies because we need to know if they are going to allow the EFCC to continue to engage in media trials and carry on as the attack dog of the Federal Government against other arms and levels of governments.’

“Is the Federal Government of President Muhammadu Buhari against Yahaya Bello Administration of Kogi State? Where does Agbakoba get his logic of attack dogs? What is a media trial, when a case has been filed in court and the defendants have taken their pleas? Should Nigerians have been kept in the dark that a certain nephew of Yahaya Bello is facing a N10billion fraud trial?”

Uwujaren insisted that EFCC is not averse to criticisms but it will not ignore jaundiced views masked as advocacy for rule of law.

“No amount of intimidation and sponsored attacks will deter the Commission from investigating cases of corruption in any level of government, or involving any individual however well placed, until we rid our nation of this monster.”

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Law

Mambilla Update: Agunloye heads to Appel Court over ruling fundamental rights

Published

on

By

Share this story

Justice Obiora Egwuatu at the Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a Suit filed by Agunloye in June 2023 to restrain EFCC from harassing him and breaching his fundamental rights because of the ongoing International Arbitration on Mambilla Power Project

The points made by Agunloye in the Civil Suit which had dragged for over nine months had become irrelevant or expired in reality because the EFCC, the Respondent, had, while the case was in progress, declared Agunloye wanted, detained him, maltreated him in detention.
The antigraft agency also arraigned him before another court and remanded him in prison until the court granted him bail.

The court under Justice Egwuatu, however, did not consider the merits of the case largely on the ground that EFCC has the power to carry out its statutory duties and can not be stopped by the Court. On this basis, Justice Egwuatu dismissed the suit and awarded costs.

Agunloye’s lawyers have expressed preparedness in respect of the appeal considering that the court admitted basing its ruling on the suit being “an attempt to use the instrumentality of the Court to shield the Applicant from criminal investigation and to interfere with the statutory authority of the Respondent to investigate crimes or allegations of same in line with the EFCC Act.”

It is believed that the duties of EFCC must be performed in accordance with the law, and the court has the powers to stop any infraction by the EFCC in the course of performance of its duties. Such does not amount to interference with the statutory duties of EFCC but a legal checkmate of its powers to deter likely abuse.

With the Agunloye heading to
appeal against the Judgement, the case is far from being over, and the Court of Appeal will take the opportunity to look at the case extensively.

Continue Reading

Law

Oyowoli Vs Delta Governor: Court fixes March 27th to hear preliminary objection

Published

on

By

Share this story

High Court 2 in Asaba, Delta State, Presided over by Justice G. Brikinns Okolosi, has slated March 27, 2024, to rule on preliminary objection for extension of time, raised by Counsels to two defendants in the case instituted by Prince Oyowoli Emiko against Prince Utienyioritsetsola Emiko, Delta State Governor, Hon Sheriff Francis Orohwedor Oborevwori and 23 others.

The Court took the position at its proceedings on Monday.

Prince Oyowoli Emiko, in a suit
had dragged Prince Utienyioritsetsola Emiko, Pa Akoma Dudun (The Olare-Ebi of Ginuwa 1 Ruling House, Warri Kingdom) Chief Ayirimi Emami (the Ologbotsere of Warri Kingdom/member of the Olu Advisory Council) Prince Emmanuel Okotie-Eboh (The Olori-Ebi of Ginuwa 1 Ruling House, Warri Kingdom) The Governor of Delta State, The Attorney General of Delta State and Chief Johnson Atseleghe (the Iyatsere of Warri/member of the Olu Advisory Council) and 18 others to the court in Asaba as defendants
He is praying the court to declare him as the rightful heir to the throne of Warri Kingdom, following the transition of the then Olu of Warri, Ogiame Ikenwoli.
The stool had since been occupied by His Majesty, Ogiame Atuwatse III.
At the Court proceedings, Counsels to some of the defendants in the suit had challenged the jurisdiction of court to entertain the matter and sought for preliminary objection for extension of time.
Findings revealed that at the last
adjourned date, the court made an order, setting down the preliminary objection for hearing and subsequently gave defense Counsels seeking the preliminary objection, two weeks to file in the objection.
At the resumed hearing on Monday, Chief Emmanuel Uti, who is counsel to Chief Ayirimi Emami, opposed the application brought by Barrister Orhiaki and Chief Robinson Ariyo, on the ground that a new law that is called Administration of Civil Justice Law of Delta State 2022.
The law provides that if a preliminary objection is to be filed, it should be done within 30 days upon being served with the statement of claim.

Chief Robinson Ariyo argued that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter, which according to him has been discontinued by the claimant.

Chief Emmanuel Uti, however argued that since the preliminary objection wasn’t filed, within the aforesaid time, the court can as well hear the matter on merit and decide at the end of the day, that both the preliminary objection and the substantive matter should be heard on merit.

Speaking to newsmen shortly after the court proceedings, Chief Emami, the erstwhile Prime Minister of the Warri Kingdom likened his role in the case to that of an electrical umpire like the INEC (Independent National Electoral Commission) which according to him, is to supervise the electoral process for the emergence and crowning of Olu of Warri Kingdom.

When asked about the presence of some persons who wore branded T-shirts to the court premises, Chief Emami, explained that “their action was occasioned by happenings in Warri kingdom, especially because I stand for truth and fairness as it relates to the succession controversy in Warri Kingdom.”
Spokesperson of the Ologbotsere Descendants Worldwide, Mr. Alex Eyengho and other supporters of Chief Emami, were in the court premises to show solidarity .

Continue Reading

Law

Tension in 7 States as Supreme Court delivers judgements on Friday

Published

on

By

Share this story

Apprehension has gripped Seven States, as the Nigerian Apex Court has hinted it will deliver judgements in seven governorship appeals on Friday, January 12, 2024, beginning from 9am.

The states includes Lagos, Kano, Zamfara, Plateau, Ebonyi, Bauchi and Cross River.

Sanwo-Olu VS GRV, Jandor
The Appeal Court in Lagos in November affirmed the judgment of the tribunal, confirming the return of Babajide Sanwo-Olu and Obafemi Hamzat as the Governor and Deputy Governor of Lagos state.

The justices of the court of appeal in a unanimous decision dismissed the appeal of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the Labour Party (LP) for lack of merit.

In March, INEC declared Sanwo-Olu as the winner of the Lagos governorship election.

Sanwo-Olu polled 762,134 votes to defeat his close challenger, LP’s Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour also known as GRV, who scored 312,329 votes. PDP’s Abdulazeez Adediran popular as Jandor came a distant third with 62,449 votes.

Not satisfied, the LP and PDP candidates approached the Lagos State Election Petitions Tribunal to nullify Sanwo-Olu’s victory.

In its ruling on September 25, the tribunal dismissed Adediran and Rhodes-Vivour’s suit seeking to nullify the victory of Sanwo-Olu at the poll.

Displeased with the verdict, the duo approached the appellate court but the higher court dismissed their suits. Both men subsequently approached the apex court which is expected to deliver a judgement on Friday.

Nwifuru VS Odii
The Supreme Court had on Tuesday reserved judgement in the Ebonyi State governorship election appeal.

Last November, the Court of Appeal in Lagos had affirmed the election of APC’s Fran­cis Nwifuru as the duly elected governor of Ebonyi State in the March 18 governorship election.

The three-member panel presided over by Justice Jummai Sankey, in its unanimous decision, dismissed the appeal filed by PDP’s Chukwuma Odii and upheld the earlier verdict of the tribunal but the PDP candidate approached the apex court to seek redress

Yusuf VS Gawuna
Late December, the apex court reserved judgement in the appeal filed by the Kano State Governor, Abba Yusuf, challenging the verdict of the Court of Appeal and the State Election Petitions Tribunal, which removed him from office.

The five-member panel led by Justice John Okoro reserved the judgement after the parties adopted their brief of arguments.

In September, the tribunal nullified the victory of Yusuf, the candidate of the New Nigeria’s Peoples Party (NNPP) in the March 18 governorship election.

The tribunal also affirmed Nasiru Gawuna of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the duly elected governor of Kano.

On November 13, the Court of Appeal upheld the verdict of the tribunal. In its ruling, the Appeal Court agreed with the judgement of the tribunal, ruling that the fielding of Abba Yusuf was in breach of the Electoral Law as he was not qualified to contest that election. But the governor proceeded to the Supreme Court to seek redress.

Lawal VS Matawalle
Last November, the Appeal Court nullified the election of Zamfara State Governor Dauda Lawal.

Lawal, of the main opposition PDP, was declared the winner of the March 18 governorship election. In a shocking victory that dislodged then-incumbent Bello Matawalle of the All Progressives Congress (APC), he polled a total of 377,726 votes. Matawalle scored 311,976 votes.

The PDP candidate, now serving as the Minister of State for Defence, had accused INEC of subverting his victory at the poll by failing to include the results of some ward areas.

In an earlier ruling on September 18, the Zamfara Election Petitions Tribunal held that the petition was devoid of merit. While upholding Lawal’s victory, the tribunal awarded the N500,000 fine against the petitioners.

An unsatisfied Matawalle, as observers expected, took the matter to the Court of Appeal in Abuja, to challenge the decision of the lower court.

Respite came for Matawalle on Thursday as the three-member panel led by Justice Oyebisi Folayemi, nullified the return of Governor Lawal as the winner of the governorship poll.

Justice Sybil Nwaka ordered INEC to conduct a fresh election in three local government areas of the state, where elections had not been held previously or where results from various polling units were not counted.

But the governor proceeded to the apex court to seek redress.

Mohammed VS Abubakar
Also in November, the appellate court affirmed the victory of Governor Bala Mohammed of Bauchi State in the March 18 governorship election.

The appeal was filed by the All Progressives Congress (APC) governorship candidate, Sadique Abubakar, following the tribunal judgment upholding Mohammed’s victory.

The panel of three justices were unanimous, awarding no cost as the court ruled that each party to the matter should bear their costs.

The presiding judge, Justice Chidi Nwaoma Uwa, read the judgment in the order of the appellant’s plea before the appeal court.

On plea number one, the appellant pleaded that the election be nullified because the forms and booklets used in the election were not properly filled. The court ruled that the appellant failed to prove this allegation with the needed evidence.
Mutfwang VS Goshwe
On January 9, 2024, the Supreme Court reserved judgement in the appeal filed by the Governor of Plateau State, Caleb Mutfwang, seeking to overturn the verdict of the Court of Appeal which nullified his election.

A five-member panel of justices led by Justice John Okoro reserved judgement after hearing arguments from parties for and against the appeal.

The governor through his counsel, Kanu Agabi, prayed the court to uphold the judgement of the Tribunal and set aside the judgment of the appellate court because the respondents have no right to question how a party elects its state executives.

He said the respondents (Nentawe Goshwe and the All Progressives Congress) can not plead that the governor did not score the number of lawful votes ascribed to him at the same time say the election was invalid.

In November, the Appeal Court in Abuja sacked Mutfwang and ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to issue a Certificate of Return to Goshwe but the governor proceeded to the apex court to seek redress.

Continue Reading

Trending