By Jude-Ken Ojinnaka
Justice Akintayo Aluko of a Federal High Court sitting in Lagos on Thursday (today), adjourned till October 9, hearing of fundamental rights enforcement suit, filed by a lawyer on behalf of suspended EFCC boss.
A lawyer and former EFCC prosecutor Nkereuwem Mark Anana has on behalf of the suspended Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Abdulrasheed Bawa, filed a fundamental rights and enforcement suit before a Federal High Court sitting in Lagos against the Director-General of the Department of State Security (DSS) and two others.
The suit which was filed before Justice Akintayo Aluko by a former EFCC prosecutor Nkereuwem Mark Anana came up on Thursday (today) for hearing.
Recall that the suspended Chairman of the EFCC, Bawa has been in detention since June 14, 2023, when he was arrested by the operatives of the Department of State Security (DSS). Since then, he was neither charged to court nor granted administrative bail.
In suit number FHC/L/CS/1631/2023, counsel Nkereuwem Mark Anana had dragged the DSS Director-General, the DSS and Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) to court for trampling upon the fundamental rights of embattled chairman of the EFCC.
During the hearing of the matter, Anana urged the court to strike out the name of the third respondent, AGF, from the suit. The request was granted by the court.
In the suit, Abdulrasheed Bawa, through his counsel Nkereuwem Anana, had asked the court for the following reliefs:
“A declaration that the arrest and continuous detention of Abdulrasheed Bawa, former Chairman Economic and Financial Crimes Commission by the first and second respondents, constitutes a violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed by Section 35 (1) (2) (38) and (4) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria as amended and the African Charter of Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act Cap 10 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.
“A declaration that the arrest and continuous detention of Abdulrasheed Bawa by the first and second respondents, without granting him bail as envisaged by law constitutes a violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed by Section 35 (1) (2) (3) and (4) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria as amended and the African Charter of Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act Cap 10 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.
“A declaration that the arrest and continuous detention, harassment, intimidation of Abdulrasheed Bawa over an investigation that the first and second respondents lack the powers to investigate, threatens the life of Abdulrasheed Bawa and therefore is unlawful, unjustifiable, illegal and unconstitutional.
“An order of the Court mandating the immediate release of Abdulrasheed Bawa from the first and second respondents’ detention.
“An order of the Court granting Mr. Abdulrasheed Bawa bail on liberal terms and or an order mandating the respondents to produce Abdulrasheed Bawa before the court to show cause why he should not be admitted bail.
“The sum of N100 million, as damages against the first and second respondents.”
The counsel had told the court that the suit was filed pursuant to Fundamental Rights Enforcement (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009, Section 46(3) of the Constitution Of The Federal Government of Nigeria; African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and under the court’s Inherent Jurisdiction.
Anana also urged the court to strike out the name of the third respondent, AGF, from the suit. The request was granted by the court.
However, DSS and its Director-General, in their preliminary objection, filed by their counsel, Mr. Michael Bajela and S. Edoh, are asking the court to dismiss the suit for being vexatious and abuse of court process.
The DSS and its Director-General also asked the court to award the cost of N200 million against the lawyer as general damages.
The two respondents state that their preliminary objection was brought pursuant to Section 46 (1)(2) OF The Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended); Order 29 rules 1 and 2 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019 and under the court’s Inherent Jurisdiction.
The two respondents listed five grounds in support of their preliminary objection, and stated that; “the applicant is a meddlesome interloper without locus standi to institute this action against them
“That the Federal High Court, Lagos, lacks the territorial jurisdiction to hear and entertain the suit, as there is a Federal High Court, in Abuja, the Federal Capital Territory.
“That there is no reasonable cause of action disclosed against them.
“That the actions of the applicant amounts to forum shopping and therefore an abuse of the processes of this Honourable Court.
“That the applicant does not have the mandate, authority and for or from anybody to institute the action.”
The two respondents supported their application with a 12 paragraph-affidavit deposed to by one Joshua Babalola, a DSS operative.
After hearing the parties in the suit, Justice Aluko fixed October 9, for hearing of the suit, following a request by Anana, who informed the court that he needed to respond to preliminary objection filed by the Director General SSS and DSS.
