You Can’t Arrest Mike Ozekhome for Criticising Ibrahim Magu – Court Warns EFCC

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission has been banned from arresting fiery lawyer, Mike Ozekhome. 

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC has been stopped by a Federal High Court in Abuja from arresting Nigerian lawyer, Mike Ezekhome.

The court on Thursday, restrained the EFCC, from inviting, harassing, threatening to arrest or detain him.

The EFCC had wanted to arrest the lawyer for for criticising its former Acting Chairman, Ibrahim Magu.

The court, in a judgment that was delivered by Justice Inyang Ekwo, held that serial acts of intimidation and constant invitations the anti-graft agency extended to the senior lawyer, as well as threats to arrest, detain and humiliate him, over publications and speeches he made “in respect of the apparent opaqueness and lopsidedness of the corruption fight of the 1st Respondent (EFCC) under the leadership of the 2nd Respondent (Magu)”, were illegal, unlawful, wrongful, unconstitutional.

Justice Ekwo held that the action of the agency constituted a blatant violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights as enshrined in Sections 35, 37, 39 and 41 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), and Articles 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12 & 14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights Ratification and Enforcement Act, Cap. A9 LFN 2004.

The judgment followed a fundamental right enforcement suit Ozekhome lodged before the court.

Cited as 1st to 3rd Respondents in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/324/2018, were the EFCC, Magu and one of its lead operatives, Abubakar Aliyu Madaki.

Ozekhome had in the suit, told the court that EFCC had continued to harass him for being a vocal critic of the lopsided nature of President Muhammadu Buhari’s anti-corruption war led by Magu.

He told the court that aside from repeatedly summoning him to appear for questioning, the agency froze his bank account after he was paid his legal fees totalling the sum of N75 million, by the former Governor of Ekiti State, Ayodele Fayose.

Ozekhome maintained that one of the reasons the EFCC made him its primary target, was because he secured many legal victories against it in various hierarchies of courts in the country.

He told the court that threats from the respondent was to shut him up from further criticisms of “the despicable and unjust manner of their fight against corruption in Nigeria”.

He said he did not commit any offence to warrant the incessant invitations and threats to arrest, detain or declare him wanted by the respondents.

Besides, he told the court that the account from which the N75m was paid to him, belonged to the former governor of Ekiti State, Fayose, who he said had not been convicted by any court to warrant labelling the money as proceeds of crime.

Ozekhome averred that it took the intervention of the Federal High Court in Lagos to unfreeze his bank account.

Consequently, he prayed the court to, among other things, declare that he was entitled to receive legal fees for professional services he rendered to clients, including to Fayose and that he is not bound or obligated to determine the source of funds used in paying for legal services he rendered.

The applicant asked the court to compel the respondents to publish an unreserved apology to him in three prominent dailies for the breach of his right.

As well as for an order directing the respondents to jointly and severally pay the sum of N5 billion to him as exemplary damages for wanting violation of his rights.

However, the EFCC, in a counter-affidavit that was deposed to by one of its operatives, Usman Aliyu, urged the court to dismiss the suit.

The Commission told the court that Ozekhome was being investigated for a lot of cases bordering on money laundering and tax evasion, based on an intelligence report from the Nigeria Financial Intelligence Unit, NFIU.

It told the court that the applicant received various sums of money at different times from DAAR Investment & Holding Company Limited, Ekiti State Government and the Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation, NNPC, without payment of taxes due to both the Federal and Ekiti state governments.

The EFCC told the court that further investigation revealed an attempt by the wife of former President Goodluck Jonathan, Patience, to launder money through the Applicant in the sum of N1 billion.

Delivering judgment in the matter on Thursday, Justice Ekwo said he was satisfied that Ozekhome established a case of intimidation and harassment by the respondents.

He held that though the court would always restrain itself from interfering with the functions of statutory bodies like the EFCC, “but that is only in so far as such agency is demonstrably shown to be acting pursuant to the veritable spirit of the law”, Justice Ekwo added.

According to the Judge, “Where the act of such a statutory body is shown to be manifestly predicated on ill will, malice and animosity, the law will intervene. The Court will never allow the law to be used as an instrument of vendetta or vindictiveness as established in this case.

“On the whole, I find that the Applicant has established a clear case of animus by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents in the manner of incessant invitation to him.

“This has established the fact that his fundamental rights as enshrined in Ss. 35, 37, 39 and 41 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), and, Articles 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12 & 14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights Ratification and Enforcement Act, Cap. A9 LFN are likely to be contravened.

“In other words, the essence of this case in my opinion is to stop the Respondents from likely contravening the rights of the Applicant by their actions toward him; where the case is that of likely breach, that is, threat on the part of the Respondents”.

Though the court made consequential orders restraining the Respondents from inviting, arresting or detaining the Applicant, it, however, declined to either award damages in his favour or compel EFCC to apologize to him.

It held that such reliefs would only apply, “where the case is founded on where the infringement has occurred or is occurring”.