Court berates EFCC for attempting to stall case involving a foreigner
(Nigeria) An Abuja High Court judge, Justice Peter Affen has berated
the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, for allegedly intimidating
his court and attempting to stall a case involving it and an Austrian
Security contractor, Mr. Wolfgang Reinl, who sued the anti-graft agency for N2billion for allegedly detaining him since last year without trial.
Reinl was detained since December last year by the
commission in connection with the ongoing trial of the former National Security
Adviser, NSA, Col. Sambo Dasuki (retd).
Wolfgang, a security consultant was picked up by the EFCC on
December 28, 2015 and his travel documents, phones and other materials
confiscated without an order of a court.
The plaintiff’s lawyer, Mr. Afam Osigwe had approached the Abuja
High Court for the enforcement of his client's fundamental human right, but the
EFCC through its counsel, Mr. Ibrahim Audu told the court that the EFCC never
detained Mr. Wolfgang let alone seizing his belongings.
He said it was a "mere Litigation Secretary" in
the EFCC that deposed to an affidavit indicating the detention of the plaintiff
saying Mr. Wolfgang was never detained.
The lawyer further informed the court that the said
Litigation Secretary was not part of the interrogators or the arresting party,
hence, he could not have been in the know of what transpired.
But the plaintiff’s lawyer insisted that two police
detectives, CSP Sharo and another Mr. Madaki had arrested his client and that
the respondents have not denied the fact that the two officers worked for the
commission or denied that he was released upon a bond executed that whenever he
is needed, he must oblige.
However, rather than allow the plaintiff to prove his case,
the EFCC urged the court to dismiss the case for gross incompetence and for the
court's lack of jurisdiction.
The commission said that having cross-checked its register,
there was no evidence showing that it ever arrested the applicant.
The proceedings, however, took a twist when EFCC lawyer
filed a preliminary objection to Wolfgang's application.
Justice Affen who reserved ruling on the preliminary
objection to a later date yet to be decided said the plaintiff has a right to
sue but EFCC insisted that the plaintiff has no right or any fundamental right
to claim before the court.
Apparently uncomfortable with the use of words by the EFCC
lawyer, the judge became enraged and told the EFCC not to wear the court out by
dwelling on inanities.
Justice Affen lambasted the EFCC for attempting to
intimidate the court, warning the commission to drop its toga of arrogance
before approaching his court.
"You are in court and I am the Dominis Litis here. This
is not EFCC office. You must comport yourself. The problem is that you people
(EFCC) have too much physical power and you carry it to everywhere you go.
"This is not a motor park and you must not be throwing
your hands anyhow and be shouting. When you come before me, you will never
remain the same. You owe the court a duty of deference. Leave your policeman or
EFCC powers at the door. Didn't they teach you that in Law School?" the
Judge queried, saying it was wrong for people to raise all manners of
objections to scuttle cases.
Justice Affen said that rather than relying on the affidavit
deposed to by the Litigation Secretary, the two arresting officers should be
the ones trying to convince the court as to whether they picked and detained
Mr. Wolfgang or otherwise.
The plaintiff had among others, sought declaration that his
arrest and detention by EFCC since December 28, 2015 was unlawful,
unconstitutional, illegal and a violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed
by Section 35(1) & (4) of the 1999
Constitution.
*A declaration that the restriction/confinement placed on
him by the respondents by keeping him in their custody since December 28, 2015
is unlawful, unconstitutional and direct infraction of the rights of the
Applicant to freedom of movement as guaranteed by section 41 of the
constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.
* A declaration that his continued detention by the
respondents without informing him of his offence in writing is unlawful,
unconstitutional and an infraction of the Applicant’s rights as guaranteed by
section 35(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.
* A declaration that
the refusal to release him until he admits laundering undisclosed amount of
money or any sum whatsoever is unlawful, unconstitutional, illegal and a
violation of the Applicant’s Fundamental Rights as guaranteed by section
43 of the Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria 1999.
He therefore, prayed for an order of injunction restraining
the respondent whether by itself, servants, privies, agents or whosoever
purporting to act on its behalf from violating or further violating his
fundamental rights as guaranteed by section 34 (1) 35, (1)and (4) and 43 of the Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria 1999.
The plaintiff also demanded a sum of N2billion as exemplary
and aggravated damages for the infraction of his fundamental rights.
Wolfgang also asked the court for an order restraining the respondent
whether by itself, servants, privies, agents or whosoever purporting to act on
its behalf from violating or further violating his Fundamental Rights through
prolonged detention or upon such terms as this honourable court may deem
appropriate in the circumstances, pending the determination of this suit.
Plaintiff further
asked the court to order EFCC to tender a public apology to him the applicant
and also to order the immediate release of his international passport
confiscated by the agency.
In an affidavit in support of the suit, the plaintiff
claimed to be an Austrian national married to a Nigerian woman and was arrested
by the operatives of the Respondent on December 28, 2015.
He averred that the respondent detained him from December
28, 2015 and did not release him from its custody until the February 5, 2016.
He also claimed that on December 28, 2015 about five men who
stormed his residence situate at No. 10 Ontario Crescent, Maitama Abuja,
introduced themselves as operatives of the Respondent and informed him they had
a search warrant to search his house as well as take him to their office in
Abuja that same day.
Plaintiff said he informed the respondent’s operatives that
the award of the contract being investigated had in fact been verified by the
Office of the National Security Adviser which had in fact assured him that
outstanding contracts sums due and owing to companies he had interest in would
be paid.
He said that in the course of the investigation the
respondent invited personnel of various agencies which submitted documents and
pictures which showed that the contracts had in fact been executed.
He said that the investigation also revealed that his
companies had received far less money than they were being owed by the Federal
Government.
He also claimed that the presentation of his medical report
did not dissuade the respondent from continuing his prolonged detention in a
very uncomfortable and undignified over-crowded cell at their office.
Besides, he said the order for his arrest was made even
though he had committed no offence or done anything for which his arrest could
be ordered.
Plaintiff also claimed that he was not brought before a
Magistrate Court or other court for remand order in line with statutory
requirement of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015.
He also alleged that the respondent’s operatives also
confiscated his brother-in-law’s two phones, also insisted they would only
release the phones to his wife if she gave them his pass-words to also enable
them ‘analyze’ the phones, his emails, text messages and all data stored
therein.
Comments
Post a Comment