|
Ajudua, Ade
Bendel, three others sue FG over EFCC Act
By Victor
Efeizomor
Law Reporter
Five suspects standing trial at the Ikeja
High Court, Lagos, for alleged advance fee fraud, otherwise known as 419, has sued the
Federal Government, challenging the inclusion of Section 40 of the recently
passed Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act, 2004 in
their trial.
Joined in the suit are the
Attorney-General of the Federation, the Economic and Financial Crimes
Commission (EFCC) and the National Assembly.
In an originating summons filed
separately at the Federal High Court, Abuja, Chief Fred Chijindu Ajudua, a
lawyer and Lagos
businessman, Chief
Alumile Adedeji (alias Ade Bendel), a Lagos socialite and businessman,
Edwin Obi, Kenneth Metu and Kingsley Dike, through their counsel, Mr. Olalekan
Ojo, stated that Section 40 of the EFCC Act 2004 is inconsistent with their
constitutional right to fair hearing as guaranteed by Section 36 of the 1999
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Following legal bottle-neck that has
prohibited the EFCC from prosecuting most of its advance fee fraud cases,
Chairman of the Commission, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, took refuge at the National
Assembly through sponsorship of a private member bill to give legal backing and
to strengthen the commission.
In May this year, the National Assembly
passed the bill into an Act, in which Section 40 prohibits the hearing of an
application for stay of proceedings filed by advance fee fraud suspects pending
the determination of the case and until after judgment by the trial court has
been entered.
The plaintiffs argue that the section
wrongfully impair or derogate from the exercise of their right of appeal
against the interlocutory ruling or decision in their various charges; that it
infringes on or interferes with the exercise of the judicial powers vested in
the trial courts by Section 6(6) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria and the principles of separation of powers as entrenched in
the Constitution.
The plaintiffs, among others, are seeking
a declaration that Section 40 of the EFCC Act is ultra vires the legislative
competence of the accused persons; an order of court setting aside the said
Section 40, and in the alternative a declaration that the section has no
retrospective operation and therefore inapplicable to the criminal case in
their charges.
No date has been fixed for hearing of the
substantive suit.
|
