A Federal high court in Kaduna, has rejected an application for stay of execution by the federal government of an earlier judgement declaring its decision to freeze foreign accounts of the Abacha family.
The court presided over by Justice Abdullahi Liman, had on September 24, 2004, declared as null and void and of no effect the 1999 directive by President Obasanjo based on a repealed law to justice minister, Godwin Kanu Agabi, to freeze bank accounts in Switzerland and elsewhere belonging to late Head of State, General Sani Abacha and his family members.
The federal government said these accounts contained looted funds from government coffers and has appealed the judgement at the Federal Appeal Court, Kaduna, after which it applied for a stay of execution of the high court judgement.
Dismissing the application at the weekend in his ruling on the matter, Justice Liman also challenged the Attorney-General of the federation to make good his threat to report him (Liman) to the National Judicial Council over his judgement on the case.
He awarded a N5,000 cost against the federal government and accused government counsel, Samuel Omonokpo Esq. of incompetence in his management of the case which he said, required a very careful approach.
Said he, “the defendant needed to establish a good ground to enable me exercise my discretion to grant a stay of execution. For now they have failed and the application is bound to fail and it is accordingly dismissed,” he ruled.
Justice Liman further noted that the monies in question were in the bank and probably yielding interests and the federal government only needed to comply with the due process in freezing the accounts.
“The amounts involved in the request for transfer are in the custody of these (foreign) countries and there is no contention that if the defendant applicant is not allowed to transfer the monies to its custody, the monies will either disappear or depreciate.
“It seems that as long as these proceedings continue in the courts, the monies will not only remain in the banks but may probably be yielding interests that may become due to the defendant applicant, after complying with the due process as stipulated in the judgement of this court.
“The case of Oyo State government versus Akinyemi Supra following the case of Vasvani versus Babalakin presents the correct principle of law relating to the grounds on which a stay of execution on proceedings be granted and one fundamental issue in this case is the destructibility of the case.
“But since counsel for the applicant/defendant prevaricated so much that in all important grounds, counsel failed to show how the case will be destroyed.
“His allegations about Abdullahi’s illegal organisation using the judgement to perpetuate their illegal and fraudulent activities is not only puerile but a sardonic approach to an important legal issue.”
|
|
