The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory on Thursday ruled that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission lacks the powers to declare anyone wanted without first obtaining a court order for that purpose or charging the suspect with an offence .
Justice Othman Musa ruled that although the EFCC could declare as wanted persons who fail to honour its invitation for investigation , it could only do so if it obtains a court order for that purpose .
The judge made this pronouncement in a fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by the Chief Executive Officer of AITEO Group , Benedict Peters.
Peters had , in the suit marked , FCT/ HC /CV/ 23/ 2017 , accused EFCC of declaring him wanted on its website without following due process .
The EFCC and the Attorney- General of the Federation were the respondents to the suit.
The plaintiff, through his lawyer , Mike Ozekhome ( SAN ), contended that his declaration as wanted by the EFCC to declare him wanted without a pending charge against him or a valid court order to that effect was a violation of his fundamental rights.
The EFCC had said Peters was being investigated in relation to his alleged involvement the $ 115 m allegedly used by agents of the past administration to bribe officials of the Independent National Electoral Commission during the 2015 election .
The anti - graft agency said it declared Peters wanted after obtaining an arrest warrant from the Magistrates’ Court in Lagos , following his refusal to hononur invitations sent to him .
But Justice Musa, in his judgment , noted that there were discrepancies in the dates in a copy of the bench warrant tendered by the EFCC .
He said it was wrong for the EFCC to declare Peters wanted on the basis of the bench warrant, which he noted , did not contain any instruction to that effect.
The judge held that EFCC ’ s decision to declare Peters wanted, without first obtaining a court order to that effect or filing a charge against him in court , was a violation of his fundamental rights, particularly the right to freedom of movement .
He ruled , “The 1 st respondent ( EFCC) has the power to declare anyone wanted upon meeting all the conditions precedent.
“There cannot be a valid restraint of individual ’ s right to movement without the order of a court . ”
He set aside the declaration of the applicant wanted by the EFCC .
But the judge refused to set aside the arrest warrant got against Peters by the EFCC.
The judge did not also make any pronouncement on the applicant ’ s prayer for an order directing the EFCC to publicly apologise to him .
He also refused to award any cost against the EFCC.
The judge had earlier dismissed the preliminary objection by the AGF challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear the matter .
The judge held that contrary to the AGF ’ s contention, both the state High Court and the Federal High Court had jurisdiction over fundamental rights enforcement suits .
Justice Othman Musa ruled that although the EFCC could declare as wanted persons who fail to honour its invitation for investigation , it could only do so if it obtains a court order for that purpose .
The judge made this pronouncement in a fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by the Chief Executive Officer of AITEO Group , Benedict Peters.
Peters had , in the suit marked , FCT/ HC /CV/ 23/ 2017 , accused EFCC of declaring him wanted on its website without following due process .
The EFCC and the Attorney- General of the Federation were the respondents to the suit.
The plaintiff, through his lawyer , Mike Ozekhome ( SAN ), contended that his declaration as wanted by the EFCC to declare him wanted without a pending charge against him or a valid court order to that effect was a violation of his fundamental rights.
The EFCC had said Peters was being investigated in relation to his alleged involvement the $ 115 m allegedly used by agents of the past administration to bribe officials of the Independent National Electoral Commission during the 2015 election .
The anti - graft agency said it declared Peters wanted after obtaining an arrest warrant from the Magistrates’ Court in Lagos , following his refusal to hononur invitations sent to him .
But Justice Musa, in his judgment , noted that there were discrepancies in the dates in a copy of the bench warrant tendered by the EFCC .
He said it was wrong for the EFCC to declare Peters wanted on the basis of the bench warrant, which he noted , did not contain any instruction to that effect.
The judge held that EFCC ’ s decision to declare Peters wanted, without first obtaining a court order to that effect or filing a charge against him in court , was a violation of his fundamental rights, particularly the right to freedom of movement .
He ruled , “The 1 st respondent ( EFCC) has the power to declare anyone wanted upon meeting all the conditions precedent.
“There cannot be a valid restraint of individual ’ s right to movement without the order of a court . ”
He set aside the declaration of the applicant wanted by the EFCC .
But the judge refused to set aside the arrest warrant got against Peters by the EFCC.
The judge did not also make any pronouncement on the applicant ’ s prayer for an order directing the EFCC to publicly apologise to him .
He also refused to award any cost against the EFCC.
The judge had earlier dismissed the preliminary objection by the AGF challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear the matter .
The judge held that contrary to the AGF ’ s contention, both the state High Court and the Federal High Court had jurisdiction over fundamental rights enforcement suits .
Tags
Society