A High Court in Makurdi on Tuesday, dismissed two applications filed by former governor of Benue, Samuel Ortom stopping the Benue Government from probing him.
Gov Hyacient Alia had constituted two commissions of inquiry to investigate Ortom.
Irked by the decision to probe him, Ortom dragged the Benue Government, Attorney General and members of the Commission of Inquiry before the court challenging their competence to check the finances of his administration.
Gov Alia in February 2024 set up two separate panels to probe the management of the State’s finances and assets under the immediate past administration of Chief Ortom.
Chief Ortom in his suit stated that the Auditor General of the state, who is mandated by the provisions of the 1999 Constitution, had already audited the accounts of the state, amongst other reasons.
He said the period (2015-2023) under review was audited and report submitted to the Benue State House of Assembly by the Auditor General was accordingly acted upon as required by the provisions of the 1999 Constitution.
Ortom also argued that, the same issues were before the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) so it was wrong to set up another probe panel to investigate finances of Benue State within the same period as it would amount to double investigation of the same issues by two different bodies.
Delivering a ruling. Justice Tertsea Asue, dismissed has dismissed the two originating motion and an application for extension of time instituted by counsel to Ortom, Maduabuchi Uba SAN for lack of merit.
Asue held that the applicant’s case was statute barred adding that the applicant also failed to seek the leave of court before filing the originating motion which seeks to bring his suit before the court
The judge held that there was nothing in the Public Officers Protection Law or the rules of court that provided for extension of time to file an action out of time
He said both actions did not follow the required due process of law.
He said Gov. Alia, signed the gazette and constituted a commission of inquiry on Feb. 27 however, Ortomfiled his case on May 31, which was clearly out of time.
He said the applicant by his showing showed that he considered that he filed his case out of time, hence the motion for request for extension time to file the notice on motion.
He said the Public Officers Protection Law and Rules of the court does not give room for extension of time on originating summons.
In his arguments, the third respondent, Fidelis Mnyim, who is also the State Attorney General, said the applicant had no case before the court following the inability to move the motion on notice.
Mnyim said the two applications were yet to be served on him adding that there was no suit before the court and it should be struck out.
The respondents variously averred that the rules of court were meant to be obeyed and cited decisions of the supreme court to buttress their arguments.
He prayed the court to dismiss the application of the applicant for extension of time to file judicial review as the time could not be extended in the circumstance.
