A Federal High Court in Port Harcourt would today hear the application brought by former governor of Rivers State, Dr Peter Odili against the Econommic and Financial Crimes Commission(EFCC).
The court could not sit last Friday when the matter was expected to be heard for the first time, owing to activities marking the new legal year (2007/2008) in Abuja, last week. Also joined in the suit is the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister for Justice as co-respondent.
Odili dragged EFCC to court, asking it to restrain the anti-graft agency from prosecuting him over his tenure between May 29, 1999 and May 29, 2007.
He had approached the court through an ex-parte application dated September 13 and urged the court to restrain the EFCC and its agents from arresting or prosecuting him, pending determination of his application. But Justice Regina Nwodo instead ordered him to put the EFCC on notice. He also ordered that the motion on notice should be served on the respondents for accelerated hearing.
Odili claimed that EFCC was planning to prosecute him pursuant to its alleged investigation of his tenure for eight years.
The plaintiff also wants the court to grant him an order of interlocutory injunction, restraining the EFCC from disseminating, publishing or circulating report of its investigation of his tenure in Rivers State.
Odili, in his ex-parte application, backed with a 13-paragraph affidavit in support filed on his behalf by one Ndudim Oreh on behalf of his counsel, Mr Ifedayo Adedipe, SAN, chronicled his woes with EFCC. He said about November 2006 and January 2007, the 2nd Respondent (the EFCC), allegedly acting pursuant to its statutory powers, invited, arrested, denied and generally took steps that adversely affected the smooth running of the Government of Rivers State, under the Plaintiff/Applicant then.
He further claimed that bank records of the government were taken away and the account of the government frozen.
He averred that in consequence of the situation then, the then Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice for Rivers State, instituted a suit No. FHC/PHC/CSI78/2007: Attorney-General for Rivers State Vs. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission & 3 Ors. against the 2nd Respondent on record.
He claimed that in its judgment in the suit, after full hearing, the trial judge, Hon. Justice I. N. Buba of the Federal High Court, granted all the declaratory and injunctive reliefs sought by the Plaintiff/Applicant in that case, saying that the judge had, amongst other reliefs, held that the 2nd Respondent was not entitled to rely on, utilize or in any manner whatsoever put to any use any report, findings or conclusions produced or arrived at by the Respondent as a result of the purported investigation or inquiry into the appropriation, disbursing, administering or management of funds of Rivers State.
The former governor noted that shortly after handing over power to his successor, the 2nd Respondent announced to the whole world, the fact that he and some other governors, had some questions to answer, based upon the complaints received against them while in office, as well as on the basis of their investigations and findings.
He further averred that the 2nd Respondent shortly after demanded that all former governors should report to itwhich he did, and was questioned as to the alleged findings by the 2nd Respondent’s operatives, concerning his activities as governor of Rivers State.
He said he answered their questions and was allowed to go and that shortly after that, some of his former colleagues, namely: – Joshua Dariye, of Plateau State, Orji Uzor Kalu of Abia State, Dr. Chimaroke Nnamani of Enugu State, and others have since been arrested and arraigned in various courts in the federation for alleged financial crimes, noting that concerning him, the purported investigations into his tenure as the governor of Rivers State, has been nullified and declared unconstitutional by the decision of the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/PH/CS/78/2007 (Supra).
The former governor said inspite of this, the 2nd Respondent is intent on using the nullified investigation as a basis for his arrest, detention, arraignment and prosecution, as the 2nd Respondent had lately began to summon some of the men and women who worked under his tenure as the governor of Rivers State.
The former governor is therefore asking for the following reliefs:
� That pending the hearing and determination of the main suit, it will be just and convenient for the Defendants/Respondents to stay all intended actions concerning the Plaintiff/Applicant so that in the event of his suit succeeding, the res in this case, would not have been destroyed.
� In the event that the suit of the Applicant fails, the Respondents will still be at liberty to carry out their proposed action against the Respondent. However should be Respondents proceed to arrest, detain, arraign, and begin to prosecute the Applicant and his suit turns out to be successful, the Applicant would have suffered irreparable injury to his reputation, which cannot be remedied in monetary terms.
� The Applicant undertakes to prosecute this action promptly and in accordance with the laws of the country and should this order, if granted, turns out to have been wrongly obtained, the Applicant undertakes to pay damages to the Respondents, as may be ordered by the Honourable Court.
� Unless the orders prayed for are quickly granted, the Respondents may proceed to arrest, detain, arraign and prosecute the Applicant and thus render his suit void and of no consequence. In the circumstance it will be just to grant the prayers sought and the Respondents will not suffer any prejudice if the orders sought are granted.