A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) on Thursday ordered the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to immediately release the cousin of former President Goodluck Jonathan, Mr. Azibaola Robert.
The EFCC had on March 23, arrested Robert over alleged diversion $40 million through One-Plus Holdings, a sister company of Kakatar Construction and Engineering
Company Limited, meant for securing oil pipelines. The payment was said to have been made by the detained former National Security Adviser (NSA), Col. Sambo Dasuki (rtd).
Frustrated by his prolonged detention, Robert through his lawyer Chief Chris Uche (SAN), approached the court for the enforcement of
his fundamental rights.
In a motion ex-parte dated and filed on April 5 and brought pursuant to Order 5 Rules 3 and 4 of the fundamental Rights (Enforcement
Procedure) Rules 2009, Section 35 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), Uche (SAN) prayed the court to make “an order granting his
client an interim bail pending his arraignment before a court of law by the respondent (EFCC) or pending the determination of the
substantive motion in this suit.”
The senior lawyer had submitted that the court was clothed with jurisdiction to grant the applicant bail having regard to Order 4 Rule 3 and 4 of the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Rules of 2009 as well as Section
168 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015 and Section 35 (5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria.
In the suit marked: FCT/CV/1370/2016, Uche drew the court’s attention to the physical, mental and psychological torture his client had been subjected to in an underground cell of the EFCC since March 23 when he was arrested, and urged the court to grant his client’s request.
Delivering a ruling on the application yesterday, the trial judge, Justice Goodluck Olasunbor held that Robert’s detention by the EFCC
for over two weeks was unconstitutional.
Justice Olasunbor said that the applicant had disclosed sufficient evidence before the court to warrant the granting of his relief.
Relying on the extant provisions of the constitution, the judge averred that under section 35 (5) of the said provision, the
constitution provides that a person who is under arrest or detention shall be brought before a court of law within a reasonable time.
Section 35 subsection 5, 1 defines reasonable time as follows:
“In the case of an arrest or detention in any case where there is a court of competent jurisdiction within the radius of 40 kilometres within (a) period of one day and (b) in any other case a period of two days or such longer period as in the circumstance may be considered by
the court to be reasonable.”
Justice Olasunbor held: “flowing from the above provisions, and applying the intentions of the authors of our revered constitution in
the instant scenario, the detention of the applicant for a duration of 15 days as at today (Thursday, April 7), is far in excess of the
constitutionally provided time for detaining a citizen without his
arrest or arraignment in a law court.
“This court has carefully examined Order 4 Rule 3 and 4 of the Fundamental Rights Fundamental Procedure Rules 2009, there it empowers the court to entertain an ex-parte application for the prevention of life or liberty of a Nigerian Citizen where exceptional hardship may be occasioned before the service of the motion on notice.
“Applying the foregoing provisions as a litmus test to the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view and so hold that this ex-parte application is competent and contemplated by the laws of our land.
The applicant by this application disclosed that he has been in detention since 23 March, 2016 in an underground cell. This in this
court’s view amounts to a deprivation of his movement and his freedom contrary to the time frame stipulated in the 1999 constitution. I am of the view that the applicant has disclosed exceptional reason why this application should be granted. More importantly, order 4 rule 4 (1) of the fundamental rights enforcement procedural rules of 2009 empowers this court to grant bail or order the release of the
applicant forthwith from detention pending the determination of the
motion on notice.
“Similarly, lending credence the powers of this court to allow an interlocutory respite to the applicant in Section 168 of the ACJA
2015, which provides that “a judge of a High Court may direct that (a) bail conditions required by a magistrate court or police officer be
reviewed be it a defendant in custody in a state of FCT be admitted to bail.
“My summation from a community reading of the foregoing statutes, the court is empowered to grant bail or order the release of the applicant pending the determination of the motion on notice. In the light of the foregoing considerations, this court will be exercising its powers judiciously and judicially by allowing this application.
“Accordingly, this application succeeds. The applicant is hereby admitted to bail pending his arraignment before a court of law or
pending the determination of the substantive motion on notice in this
suit,” the judge said.
She, however said the applicant’s bail shall be with two sureties. Each surety shall be a serving or retired Director in any of the federal
government ministries or parastatal and must be resident within the federal capital territory. The applicant shall deposit his
international passport to the Chief Registrar of this Court.
In the same vein, the court ordered the EFCC to release Robert’s colleague and Executive Director of Kakatar Construction and Engineering Company Limited, Mr. Dakoru Atukpa who had also been in detention for the same period.
