 |
| Ayo Fayose |
GOVERNOR Ayodele Fayose of
Ekiti State was on Tuesday thrown into a dilemma after he lost out in the court
where he was challenging the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC)
which ordered his two bank accounts domiciled in Zenith Bank Plc to be frozen.
In the ruling, Justice Nnamdi Dimgba of the Federal High Court, Abuja
held that the temporary order of attachment granted in relation to some
identified assets of the governor (Ayo Fayose) did not violate Section 308 of
the constitution, and added categorically that the intention of the immunity
clause granted to some public office holders is not to shield them from
investigation by security agencies for the purpose of obtaining evidence for prosecutions
in the future...
Justice Dimgba gave the
ruling following an application by Fayose through his counsel, Chief Mike
Ozekhome (SAN) which inter alia
sought to vacate the order of interim attachment granted by the court on July
20 to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
However, Justice Dimgba restricted
the interim attachment orders on the chattels to 45 days in respect of the Section
308 of the Constitution as well as for justice to be seen to have been done on
the matter stating that to do otherwise will defeat the purpose of the immunity
clause which serves to protect governors from litigation and legal proceedings.
On the other hand, it should
not be construed in such a way as to defeat the fight against corruption, to
mean that the EFCC or other investigating agencies cannot take a peep into the
assets or personal accounts of a serving governor in the execution of a
strictly worded and mutually supervised interim attachment orders for the
purposes of obtaining evidence for use in future when the immunity has lapsed.
The affected property to
which the order relate, include four sets of four-bedroom apartments at Chalets
3, 4, 6 and 9, Plot 100, Tiaminu Savage, Victoria Island, Lagos, and also at 44
Osun Crescent, Maitama, Abuja and Plot 1504 Yedzeram Street, Maitama Abuja.
The EFCC had, while seeking
the order, stated in an affidavit accompanying its motion ex-parte
that the properties were acquired through proceeds of fraud, which Fayose
allegedly got through kickbacks from contractors and other alleged fraud.
It stated that the funds used
for the purchase of the properties were said to be drawn from the sum of N1,
219,490,000, which was said to be part of the N4, 745,000,000, allegedly stolen
from the treasury of the Federal Government through the Office of the National
Security Adviser.
Ozekhome in his application
filed on notice on July 21 prayed the
court to set aside the order of interim forfeiture on 10 grounds contending
that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain and/or proceed to grant the
interim order against the governor pursuant to the immunity clause in the 1999
Constitution.
After evaluating the
arguments of both parties, Justice Dimgba upheld the argument of EFCC’s
counsel, Andrew Akoja, to the effect that the July 20 order was validly made.
“It is my considered opinion
that the order of court, made on July 20, 2016 in respect of some property of
the applicant, and within the limited scope and duration within which it was
obtained, was duly procured and does not offend the provision of the Constitution
referred to.
“In the light of the above, I
hold that the applicant is not entitle to the reliefs sought and are hereby
refused.
“However, in the interest of
justice and not to appear to make a mockery or nonsense of the immunity clause,
I hold that the interim attachment order of July 20, 2016, granted by this
court in favour of the respondent (EFCC) shall last for 45 days as the court
had already ordered, within which the respondents must conclude their
investigation in respect of those property, at the end of which every
encumbrance on the property arising from the order of court, must abate.
“I order that in the event
that the respondent may wish to renew the interim attachment order as they are
entitled to, they must serve the motion to that effect on the applicant not
later than five days to the expiration of that order, without which the order
shall stand abated,” Justice Dimgba said.
