Justice A. Abdullahi of a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), has ordered Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to pay N2 million in damages to the claimant, Abubakar Isa, over the violation of his fundamental rights.
Delivering judgment in the suit filed by Isa against the EFCC and two others over the weekend, Justice Abdullahi held that the EFCC contravened Section 35(3) of the Constitution in the arrest, detention, and interrogation of the claimant.
The court also issued an order restraining the EFCC, either directly or through its agents or privies, from harassing, threatening, arresting, or detaining the claimant without adhering to the provisions of Section 35(3) of the Constitution.
In addition to the restraining order, the court awarded costs of N2 million against the EFCC in favour of the claimant.
Isa, through his counsel, Femi Atteh, SAN, had dragged the EFCC Chairman, Mr. Olanipekun Olukeyede, and Mr. Bawa Kaltunga (Head of the AMCON Desk), to court seeking the following reliefs: A declaration that the arrest, interrogation, and continued threat to arrest the claimant/applicant without informing him in writing of the allegations against him within twenty-four hours is unconstitutional and violates his fundamental rights as guaranteed by Section 35(3) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). An order restraining the defendants—whether directly or through their officers, servants, agents, privies, or any other persons in any capacity—from further violating the constitutional rights of the claimant/applicant by arresting, threatening to arrest, detaining, or arraigning him without compliance with Section 35(3) of the 1999 Constitution.
Recall that last year, in suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/407/2024 between the EFCC and Isa before a Federal High Court, Justice M. Olajuwon had set aside and vacated an ex-parte order previously granted to the EFCC to freeze Isa’s account.
In vacating the order, the court held:
“With the foregoing, it is apparent that in obtaining the court order, the applicant/respondent did not act in good faith and failed to make full disclosure, thereby preventing the court from appropriately dealing with the application. The application under consideration also has merit for these reasons.”
VANGUARD
