EFCC raises the alarm over order stopping investigation of Okorocha, Saraki

…Judge hears Okorocha’s suit amidst allegations of misconduct

Andrew Orolua & Doorsum Iwambe, Abuja

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on Tuesday raised the alarm over the conduct of a Federal High Court judge, Justice Taiwo Taiwo, who restrained it from investigating two highly politically exposed persons.

The commission said it is worried that the court has granted and issued two similar orders in favour of the Senate President Bukola Saraki and Imo state Governor, Rochas Okorocha in two separate suits.

Faulting the ex-parte order issued on May 14 and that issued on May 8, the commission wondered why the court would grant a particular lawyer the same orders stopping the commission from carrying its statutory duties.

The lawyer who argued the ex-parte applications on behalf of Saraki, leading to the restraining orders against the EFCC, Sunday Onubi, was the same lawyer that argued Governor Okorocha‘s ex-parte applications before Justice Taiwo Taiwo.

Also, the EFCC has written to the Chief Judge of Federal High Court, Justice Abdu Kafarati, asking him to reassign all EFCC cases before Justice Taiwo to another judge.

In the letter with reference number EFCC /EC/SC/110/09, the EFCC prayed the Justice Kafarati to reassign the following cases: Senator Bukola Saraki vs AGF and others, Bukola Saraki vs AGF and Okorocha vs AGF and others.

The commission requested that the re-assignment of the cases following the lack of confidence on the Justice Taiwo to dispense justice in the matter.

According to the petition, the EFCC alleged that this is not the first time Justice Taiwo had demonstrated obvious bias against the commission in matters in which it is involved.

It stated that “despite established legal principles which have received judicial pronouncements in a host of cases, particularly the cases Orji Uzor Kalu vs FRN 2016 LPLPR- 40108 (Supreme Court) and attorney general of Anambra State vs Uba, 2005, Justice Taiwo restrained the commission (among others) from performing its statutory functions of investigating them pending the determination of the originating motion on notice.”

Meanwhile, Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, Abuja, on Tuesday, refused to hands off the hearing of the suit filed by the Imo State Governor, Rochas Okorocha, against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) over his certificate of return, even as he acknowledged the receipt of a petition against him.

Rather, Justice Abang said proceedings in the suit were conducted in accordance with the law and rules of the court and therefore, he has nothing to hide.

Senator Osita Izunaso, one of the defendants in the case, had petitioned the National Judicial Council (NJC), the acting chief justice of Nigeria and the chief judge of the Federal High Court over the conduct of Justice Abang in the trial.

Izunaso, who is dissatisfied with the conduct of Justice Abang in the proceedings, sought the intervention of the NJC and the senior judicial officers to intervene in the matter.

The petition titled: “Re: Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/296/2019- Rochas Okorocha vs Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and others, petition against Justice Abang,” chronicled the alleged acts of misconduct committed by the judge.

Specifically, the petitioner, Izunaso, premised his petition on the ground that Justice Abang restrained his counsel, Prince Orji Nwafor-Orizu, to represent him in the suit and instead, foisted another counsel, S. N. Anichebe, who he did not brief to represent him.

When the matter came up on Tuesday, Justice Abang informed parties to the suit about the existence of a petition against him by the third defendant, Izunaso, asking him to disqualify himself from the case.

“At about 12:30 pm, I received a petition that the third defendant wrote to the chief judge that the matter be reassigned to another Judge as he was not satisfied with the way I am conducting the case.

“He made reference to several issues with legal authorities to back up his claim. It is my view that the petition was written by his lawyer and he merely signed it given the legal authorities cited.

“The law is settled that where a petition is written against a judge or court, it is the duty of the lawyer that wrote the petition to serve copies of the petition to other parties to the proceedings.

“The proceedings of this court were conducted in open court and not in chambers in line with the law and rules of the court. There is nothing to hide in this matter.

The third defendant ought to have served his petition to all parties to the suit. Order 32, Rule 1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for legal practitioners is clear on this.

“Therefore, the registrar of the court shall make copies of the petition and serve on other parties for their information and for them to ascertain if the issues raised in the petition are correct. This matter shall proceed,” Abang held.

Meanwhile, counsels to the fourth, fifth and sixth defendants made their submissions and adopted their briefs of arguments as well as their notice of preliminary objections in urging the court to dismiss the suit.

In her submission, C.O. Nwako, who represented the fourth defendant, challenged the jurisdiction of the court to adjudicate on the suit she described as a post-election matter.

Nwako argued that the subject matter of the suit which is election related is within the jurisdiction of the National Assembly election petition tribunal and not that of the federal high court.

Mr. E. U. Chinedum and Okere Kingdom, who appeared for the fifth and sixth defendants respectively, made similar arguments, urging the court to dismiss the suit.

Chinedum in addition challenged the mode of the commencement of the suit through originating summons, saying it has rendered the entire suit incompetent, submitting that the proper way of bringing the action was through a writ of summons where oral evidence will be adduced to ascertain as to whether or not the INEC returning officer for the Imo West senatorial district made his declaration under duress on not.

Hearing in the suit continues today.