Bizman drags EFCC, NCAC to court for freezing 13 bank accounts

A 54-year-old man on Monday sued the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the National Council for Arts and Culture (NCAC) over an alleged unlawful freezing of his 13 bank accounts.

Managing Director, Soka Comfortainment Limited, Nze Chukwumezie, who is from Anambra state, also sued the United Bank for Africa (UBA), First Bank of Nigeria, ECOBANK, Diamond Bank, Union Bank, Zenith Bank and Sterling Bank as second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth respondents.

While the EFCC is the first respondent, the NCAC is the ninth respondent.

Twelve of the bank accounts have his name as account name while the Sterling Bank account has the name of his company as the account name.

The case was first instituted in June before Justice I. L. Ojukwu of Court 8.

The plaintiff through his counsel, Jideofor Ukachukwu, in a motion is seeking a declaration that his detention by the first respondent on January 30, 2018 was unlawful and a breach of his fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom of movement as guaranteed under Sections 35 and 41 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

He is seeking N1 billion as damages from all the defendants in the suit.

Counsel to the applicant argued that the reliefs were sought based on the fact that “the first and sixth respondents illegally and unlawfully detained the applicant and thereby, violated his rights to personal liberty and freedom of movement as guaranteed under Sections 35 and 41 of the constitution.

“The first respondent without a valid order of court directed the second to eighth respondents to freeze and place restrictions on the various bank accounts of the applicant and thereby, breached the fundamental right of the applicant to ownership of immovable property as guaranteed under Section 44 of the constitution.

“The second to eighth respondents without a valid order of court froze and placed restrictions on the bank accounts of the applicant in violation of the applicant’s ownership of immovable property as guaranteed under Section 44 of the constitution.”

According to him, the actions of the respondents amount to self-help and abuse of power which is unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal and unlawful.

The lawyer further accused the respondents of acting without regard to the extant laws of the land and fundamental rights of the applicant.

However, all the counsel to the respondents were in the court on Monday, except the EFCC’s counsel.

Justice Maha, who expressed concern that counsel to the EFCC was not in court despite service of hearing, observed that the ruling might not be ready within the vacation period.

The judge therefore, sent the matter back to court 8 and adjourned the matter until October 17 for further hearing.