By Chimezie Godfrey
A Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court sitting in Kurudu, Abuja, has declined jurisdiction in a suit filed to restrain the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission from carrying out its statutory investigative functions, in a ruling that reinforces the authority of law enforcement agencies to perform their duties within the bounds of the law.
The suit was instituted by Adediran Seyi and his company, Equilibrium Management Limited, following an invitation extended to them by the anti-graft agency in connection with a petition received by the Commission.
Rather than honour the invitation, the applicants approached the court seeking, among other reliefs, an order restraining the ICPC and other respondents from inviting or investigating them, as well as the enforcement of their alleged fundamental rights.
They also claimed that there was a likelihood that the Commission and other respondents, acting at the instance of unnamed individuals, might infringe on their constitutional rights.
In its counter-affidavit, the ICPC, through its counsel, Leslie Iheduru, described the suit as speculative, vexatious and lacking in merit, arguing that the applicants failed to present any credible evidence of actual or imminent infringement of their fundamental rights.
The Commission further contended that the action constituted an abuse of judicial process aimed at frustrating lawful investigation, stressing that an invitation by a law enforcement agency does not amount to a violation of fundamental rights.
Relying on judicial authorities, including the decision of the Court of Appeal in Onnis & Ors v. Alakija & Ors (2018), the ICPC maintained that such invitations are legitimate tools in the discharge of investigative duties and cannot be construed as persecution.
Delivering judgment, Justice Katsina Alu held that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit, citing the applicants’ failure to comply with procedural requirements stipulated under Section 46 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and Order II Rule 1 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules.
The court specifically faulted the applicants for filing a joint application for the enforcement of fundamental rights, describing the approach as procedurally defective and rendering the suit incompetent.
Legal analysts say the ruling underscores the necessity for strict adherence to due process in fundamental rights applications, while also affirming that courts will not serve as a shield for individuals seeking to evade legitimate investigations.
Reacting to the judgment, the ICPC reiterated its commitment to carrying out its mandate in accordance with the law and urged members of the public to cooperate with lawful investigations.
In a statement signed by J. Okor Odey, Head, Media and Public Communications, the Commission stated:
“The Court’s decision effectively upholds the position that due process must be strictly followed in actions seeking the enforcement of fundamental rights and reinforces the principle that law enforcement agencies should not be hindered in the discharge of their lawful duties.”
The Commission added that it would continue to operate within its constitutional mandate while ensuring fairness and respect for the rights of all parties involved.
What do you think about this?
Drop your opinion in the comment section.
FOLLOW US & Share this with someone who needs to see this.
