A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) has berated the\u00a0Economic andFinancial Crimes Commission (EFCC) over the continued illegal\u00a0 detention of\u00a0ex-President Goodluck Jonathan’s cousin, Azibaola Roberts for over 65 days\u00a0without\u00a0trial.\n<\/p>\n
EFCC had on March 23<\/span><\/span>, arrested Robert over\u00a0 alleged diversion of\u00a0$40million through\u00a0One-Plus Holdings, a sister company of Kakatar‎ Construction and\u00a0Engineering\u00a0Company Limited, meant for securing oil pipelines. The judge held that the production warrant of the court that was served on\u00a0the\u00a0respondent (EFCC) on March 19, 2016, was flagrantly disobeyed noting\u00a0that”rather\u00a0than to comply with the production order, the respondent (EFCC) wilfully and\u00a0knowingly side-stepped this court’s production warrant by releasing the\u00a0applicant\u00a0(Azibaola Robert) to security operatives who allegedly took the applicant\u00a0to Lagos\u00a0on the same day and time the respondent was required to present the\u00a0applicant before\u00a0this court.<\/p>\n “As an organisation that is set-up to enforce compliance with the law, the\u00a0respondent must lead by example,” Justice Olasunbor said.\u00a0Visibly dissatisfied with the conduct of the EFCC, the court maintained\u00a0that the nanti-graft agency or any other security agency must obey a subsisting\u00a0court order\u00a0for the production of a particular suspect in its custody. \n“It is hoped that this rude conduct will never repeat itself. Let nobody\u00a0pull the\u00a0wool over the face of this courty,” Justice Olasunbor declared.<\/p>\n It would be recalled that Azibaola Robert had\u00a0 through his lawyer\u00a0Chief Chris Uche\u00a0(SAN),approached the court for the enforcement ofhis fundamental rights. \u00a0The senior lawyer had submitted that the court was clothed with\u00a0jurisdiction to\u00a0grant the applicant bail having regard to Order 4 Rule 3 and 4 of the\u00a0Fundamental\u00a0Rights Enforcement Rules of 2009 as well as Section 168 of the In the suit marked: FCT\/CV\/1370\/2016, Uche drew the court\u2019s attention to the\u00a0physical, mental and psychological torture his client had beensubjected to\u00a0in an\u00a0underground cell of the EFCC since March 23<\/span><\/span> when he was arrested,\u00a0and urged the\u00a0court to grant his client\u2019s request. Relying on the extant provisions of the constitution, the judge averred\u00a0that under\u00a0section 35 (5) of the said provision, the constitution provides that a\u00a0person who is\u00a0under arrest or detention shall be brought before a court of law within a\u00a0reasonable\u00a0time.Section 35 subsection 5, 1 defines reasonable time as follows<\/p>\n \u201cIn the case of\u00a0an arrest or detention in any case where there is a court of\u00a0competent jurisdiction\u00a0within the radius of 40 kilometreswithin (a) period of one day and (b) in\u00a0any other\u00a0case a period of two days or such longer period as in the\u00a0circumstance may be\u00a0considered by the court to be reasonable.\u201d\u00a0Justice Olasunbor further held: \u201cflowing from the above provisions, and\u00a0applying the\u00a0intentions of the authors of our revered constitution in the instant\u00a0scenario, the\u00a0detention of the applicant for a duration of 15 days as at today\u00a0(Thursday, April\u00a07), is far in excess of the‎ constitutionally provided time for\u00a0detaining a citizen\u00a0without his arrest or arraignment in a law court.<\/p>\n \u201cThis court has carefully examined Order 4 Rule 3 and 4 of the\u00a0Fundamental Rights\u00a0Fundamental Procedure Rules 2009, there it empowers the court to entertain an\u00a0ex-parte application for the prevention of life or liberty of a Nigerian\u00a0Citizen\u00a0where exceptional hardship may be occasioned before the service of\u00a0the motion on\u00a0notice.<\/p>\n \n\u201cApplying the foregoing provisions as a litmus test to the facts and\u00a0circumstances\u00a0of this case, I am of the view and so hold that this ex-parte\u00a0application is\u00a0competent and contemplated by the laws of ourland. The applicant by this In the same vein, the court had ordered the EFCC to release\u00a0Robert\u2019s colleague and\u00a0Executive Director of Kakatar Construction and Engineering Company\u00a0Limited, Mr.\u00a0Dakoru Atukpa who had also been in detention for the same period.\u00a0Despite the foregoing court order mandating the anti-graft body to\u00a0release Mr.\u00a0Roberts, the defendant is still being held without being charged to any court<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) has berated the\u00a0Economic andFinancial Crimes Commission (EFCC) over the continued illegal\u00a0 detention of\u00a0ex-President Goodluck Jonathan’s cousin, Azibaola Roberts for over 65…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":48628,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-49617","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-exclusive"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nDelivering a ruling on the application for the enforcement of his\u00a0fundamental rights\u00a0the court presided over by Justice Goodluck Olasunbor described the prolonged\u00a0detention of Azibaola. Robert without trial as reprehensible and a conduct\u00a0that\u00a0smacks of anarchy.<\/p>\n
\nJustice Olasunbor noted that “the conduct of the respondent is unsalutory and\u00a0condemnable. It undermines the integrity of the court and portends\u00a0anarchy. No\u00a0person being a natural or jurisdic person is greater than the court. All\u00a0persons are\u00a0subordinates to the rule of law.<\/p>\n
\nIn a motion ex-parte dated and filed on April 5<\/span><\/span> and brought pursuant Order 5 Rules\u00a03 and 4 of the fundamental Rights (EnforcementProcedure) Rules 2009,\u00a0Section 35 of\u00a0the 1999 Constitution (as amended).\u00a0Uche (SAN) prayed the court to make \u201can order granting his client an\u00a0interim bail\u00a0pending his arraignment before a court of law by the respondent (EFCC) or\u00a0pending\u00a0the determination of thesubstantive motion in this suit.\u201d<\/p>\n
\nAdministration of\u00a0Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015 and Section 35 (5) of the 1999\u00a0Constitution of the\u00a0Federal Republic of Nigeria.<\/p>\n
\nDelivering a ruling on the application, the trial judge, Justice\u00a0Olasunbor had\u00a0held that Robert\u2019s detention by the EFCC for over two weeks was\u00a0unconstitutional.Justice Olasunbor had said that the applicant had disclosed\u00a0sufficient evidence before the court to warrant the granting of his relief.<\/p>\n
\napplication\u00a0disclosed that he has been in detention since 23 March, 2016 in an\u00a0underground\u00a0cell. This in this court\u2019s view amounts to a deprivation of his movement\u00a0and his\u00a0free domcontrary to the time frame stipulated in the 1999 constitution. I\u00a0am of the\u00a0view that the applicant has disclosed exceptional reason why this\u00a0application should\u00a0be granted. More importantly, order 4 rule 4 (1)\u00a0 of the fundamental rights\u00a0enforcement procedural rules of 2009 empowers this court to grant bail or\u00a0order the\u00a0release of the applicant forthwith from detention pending the\u00a0determination of\u00a0themotion on notice.”<\/p>\n