THE last may not have been heard of last week’s ruling by the Federal High Court in Kaduna which granted the prayer sought by the Abacha family that the recent freezing of its account by the Federal Government on the looted funds contravened the law.
In his judgement, Justice Abdullahi Liman ruled that the action of the government was not in tandem with the due process of law in its pursuit of the alleged funds allegedly looted by the late Head of State, General Sani Abacha. The judge who awarded N20,000 as cost against the government, stated in his verdict that the Banking and Freezing of Accounts Act, Cap 29 of December 31, 1983 Laws of the Federation was non-existent since it had been repealed by Decree 63 of 1999.
Justice Liman also held that the government should not have frozen the accounts of the Abachas since they were neither tried or facing any criminal proceedings before the action. Though the judge noted the possible effect of his judgement on the looted fund recovery effort of the government, he, however, said the constitution guaranteed citizens the right to due process of the law.
His words: “The right of the citizen to due process and the duty of the government to observe it and the court on the other hand to enforce its observation is in order to secure the basic freedom of the citizen as enshrined in the constitution which guarantees the right to personal liberty from fair hearing”.
He pointed out that the government did not dispute the affidavit deposed by the plaintiff, Alhaji Ali Abacha, stating that it was not only illegal in Nigeria but in other countries where accounts were frozen.
But one week after the verdict, it is yet unclear what the government’s position or reaction on the matter would be as it is yet to appeal against the judgement in the matter which since the revelation of the looted funds in 1999, has generated public interest. But without doubt, the judgement had sharply added a new twist to the efforts of government to recover all monies allegedly looted from Nigeria and stashed away in foreign countries.
The question now is: what will the government do? Will it appeal against the ruling or will it comply with Liman’s judgement? The days ahead will, perhaps, answer these questions more appropriately.
