By Jude-Ken Ojinnaka
A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has dismissed a fundamental rights suit filed by Mrs Funmilola Adesanya (Applicant) against the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) (1st Respondent) for lack of merit.
Joined as 2nd Respondent to the Suit No FHC/L/CS/04/2023 before Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke is Mr Kunle Adeyemo, (Trading under the name and style of Solvent Partners Limited)
While dismissing the suit, the presiding judge, Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke in his judgement held that the actions of the 1st Respondent is within the confines of the powers vested on it, based on the complaint forwarded to it by the 2nd Respondent against the applicant and therefore do not amount to an infringement of the Applicant’s fundamental rights.
The Applicant had filed the action before Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke against the Respondents. In the suit, the applicant sought an enforcement of her fundamental rights in terms of the reliefs set out in her Originating Summons dated December 29, 2022 but filed on January 4, 2023.
In her legal action against the Respondents, Mrs Funmilola Adesanya prayed the court for the following reliefs amongst others:
“A declaration that the detention of the Applicant on the December 19, 2022 without any justifiable reason is unconstitutional and a breach of the Applicant’s right to fair hearing as protected under Section 36(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999(as amended).
“A declaration that the intimidation, disturbance, threat, incessant and unjustifiable invitation, harassments of the Applicant by the Respondents and their assigns constitute an abuse and a gross violation of the Applicant’s rights to dignity of human person, as protected under Section 37 and 40 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999(as amended).
“A declaration that the 1st Respondent and its officers have no legal power to direct the Applicant to produce the sum of N301,221,900 or any sum of money at the 1st Respondent’s office.
“A declaration that the 1st Respondent have no constititional and/or legal power in respect of civil matters, business transactions, simple contract and/or alleged debt.
“An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Respondents, their representatives, agents or privies howsoever described from further violating the Applicant’s fundamental right to dignity of human person, personal liberty, right to privacy, right to freedom of movement, right to own/possess properties, right to fair hearing in the manner prescribed by the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999(as amended)
“An order of the court commanding the Respondents severally and jointly to pay the Applicant the sum of N50 million only as special, exemplary and general damages for the reckless, careless, deliberate, capricious and violent abuse and gross violation of the Applicant’s constitutionally protected rights as guaranteed under Sections 33 – 37, 40 – 42 and 44 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999(as amended) and Articles 2, 6 and 12 of the African Charter on Human and People’s rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act Cap A9 laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 and Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
“An order of the court directing the Respondents to jointly and severally, publicly apologize to the Applicant for the unlawful abuse and gr violation of her constitutionally protected rights as guaranteed under Sections 33 – 37, 40 – 42 and 44 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999( as amended)
Funmilola Adesanya’s application was supported by 22 paragraphs affidavit sworn to by the applicant on record with one exhibit attached and a written address dated December 29, 2022 but filed on January 4, 2023.
Counsel to the applicant formulated one issue for determination to wit : Whether the applicant is entitled to the prayers / reliefs sought?
The applicant submitted that from the facts elaborately deposed to in the affidavit in support of the application, it is clear that the Applicant’s rights as guaranteed under the 1999 Constitution have been unlawfully infringed by the Respondents.
But in opposition to the Applicant’s Originating Summons, EFCC filed a counter affidavit of 22 paragraphs sworn to by one Saidu Jubril, an operative of EFCC and a member of the investigation team in charge of the instant case . 1st Respondent attached 5 documents and arrive written address dated January 23, 2023 but filed January 24, 2023.
EFCC (1st Respondent ) also formulated one issue for determination to wit :Whether the 1st Respondent is statutorily empowered to conduct investigation? If the answer is resolved in the affirmative, whether invitation sent to the applicant to aid Respondent’s investigation without more is a violation of the Applicant’s constitutional rights to dignity of human person, personal liberty, human dignity and freedom of movement?
The 1st Respondent submitted that the Applicant is nothat entitled to the reliefs sought on the face of her motion paper .It submitted that it has not in any way threatened, harassed or intimidated the applicant.
It further urged the court to look at the allegations of crime made against the applicant in the petition sent by the complainant to EFCC to see whether or not there was a basis for the commission to proceed against the applicant.
EFCC urged the court to dismiss the Applicant’s application for non disclosure of any reasonable cause of action against the 1st Respondent with punitive cost.
Having carefully summarised the submission of parties herein, the court raised only one issue for determination to wit : Whether the Applicant’s fundamental rightsguaranteed under Sections 34 – 37, 41, 42 and 44 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended ) have been infringed upon by the Respondents in the circumstances of this case?
Delivering judgement on the suit, Justice Aneke said having carefully looked at the submission of parties, exhibits tendered, written addresses with plethora of authorities cited, “It is my view that the actions of the 1st Respondent is within the confines of the powers vested on it based on the complaint forwarded to it by the 2nd Respondent against the applicant and do not amount to an infringement of the Applicant’s fundamental rights in the circumstances.
“I have also lookedat ‘exhibit EFCC 1’ which is the said petition attached to the counter affidavit of the 1st Respondent, and it is clear that the petition is with respect to criminal allegations of crime of which the 1st Respondent is empowered to investigate.
“Having carefully considered the Applicant’s application and all other accompanying documents, I do not see how her fundamental rights were infringed upon by any of the Respondents.
“Accordingly, the Applicant’s claims against the Respondents are hereby dismissed in its entirety for lack of merit ” the court held.