The Abuja division of the Federal High Court has fixed May 13 to deliver a ruling on a suit seeking to compel the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to investigate an allegation that the National Chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Adams Oshiomhole, diverted public funds to his personal use.
Justice Anwuli Chikere fixed the date yesterday after the adoption of briefs of arguments filed by parties to the suit.
She is expected to determine whether or not the EFCC was not statutorily mandated to investigate different petitions that contained allegations of financial recklessness against the APC chairman. The suit marked, FHC/ABJ/CS/628/2018, was filed before the court by an Edo State based cleric and activist, Bishop Osadolor Ochei.
Osadolor had in his suit alleged that Oshiomhole while in office as the governor of Edo State,
He specifically alleged that Oshiomhole who was sued as the 2nd respondent, while in office as governor, acquired properties in United States of America, South Africa and Dubai worth billions of U.S. dollars and far in excess of his legitimate income.
He told the court through his counsel,
According to him, “the said building was constructed by Verissimo, a South African architectural outfit. The said house of the 2nd respondent has swimming pools, water fountains, multiple theatres for cinema and live performances, huge event halls, bridges, manmade lake, lodges of different sizes, amongst others.
“The said cost of building the mansion is well outside the 2nd respondent’s legitimate income. The 2nd respondent’s lifestyle and extent of the said property were not justified by his source of income”.
The applicant told the court that he had on November 4, 2016, sent a petition to the EFCC, detailing some corrupt practices he said the ex-governor was involved in. He maintained that EFCC’s refusal to act on petitions containing “weighty allegations” against Oshiomhole ran contrary to Section 15(5) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which enjoined the state to abolish corrupt practices.
Meanwhile, both the EFCC, which was sued as the 1st
The agency maintained that it has the discretion to decide how to use its available manpower to carry out investigations into petitions that are submitted to it. Though EFCC admitted that it was in receipt of petitions accusing Oshiomhole of complicity in acts of corruption, it, however, told the court that it was not under any obligation to report or give
Consequently, EFCC urged the court to dismiss the suit and decline request for an order of mandamus to compel it to initiate criminal proceedings against Oshiomhole.
“The said cost of building the mansion is well outside the 2nd respondent’s legitimate income. The 2nd respondent’s lifestyle and extent of the said property were not justified by his source of income”.
The applicant told the court that he had on November 4, 2016, sent a petition to the EFCC, detailing some corrupt practices he said the ex-governor was involved in. He maintained that EFCC’s refusal to act on petitions containing “weighty allegations” against Oshiomhole ran contrary to Section 15(5) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which enjoined the state to abolish corrupt practices.
Meanwhile, both the EFCC, which was sued as the 1st
The agency maintained that it has the discretion to decide how to use its available manpower to carry out investigations into petitions that are submitted to it.
Though EFCC admitted that it was in receipt of petitions accusing Oshiomhole of complicity in acts of corruption, it, however, told the court that it was not under any obligation to report or give
Consequently, EFCC urged the court to dismiss the suit and decline request for an order of mandamus to compel it to initiate criminal proceedings against Oshiomhole.
