Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court in Abuja has struck out a fundamental right enforcement suit filed by Lagos State governor, Babajide Sanwo-Olu seeking to prohibit the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, from arresting him after his tenure of office.
The Judge struck out the matter after counsel who appeared for Sanwo-Olu, Gbenga Femi Akande, moved the motion for the discontinuance of the case. Justice Abdulmalik had, on October. 29, fixed Nov. 26 for further mention into the suit.
The adjournment followed the submission of the EFCC’s lawyer, Hadiza Afegbua, that she was yet to see the fresh originating summons served on them by Darlington Ozurumba, who filed the suit on the governor’s behalf.
Although, the matter was fixed for today, it was, however, not listed on cause list and no governor’s lawyer was in court.
Out of the 10 cases scheduled for hearing before Justice Abdulmalik, the suit number: FHC/ABJ/CS/773/2024 between Babajide Sanwo-Olu and EFCC was not on the Tuesday’s cause list. It was gathered that the case had been struck out on October. 31 after it was withdrawn.
Sanwo-Olu, through his counsel, Ozurumba, had sued the anti-graft agency as sole defendant over alleged threat to arrest, detain and prosecute him after his tenure as governor.
In the originating summons, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/773/2024 dated and filed on June 6, the governor raised seven questions and sought 11 reliefs. He, therefore, sought an order restraining the EFCC from harassing, intimidating, arresting, detaining, interrogating or prosecuting him in connection with his tenure as the governor of Lagos State, among others.
But the EFCC, in its counter affidavit, urged the court not to grant the reliefs sought by Gov. Sanwo-Olu, describing it as speculative. The anti-corruption agency, in the application dated October. 30 but filed October. 31 by its lawyer, Afegbua, said contrary to the governor’s claims, the EFCC neither threatened, invited or took any step at all to encroach on his right to freedom of movement nor violated his right to private and family life and personal liberty.
