The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has urged the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court to reject the suit filed by Lagos State Governor, Babajide Sanwo-Olu, which seeks to prevent potential arrest, detention, and prosecution by the agency.
In its counter affidavit, filed on October 31, the EFCC described Sanwo-Olu’s application as speculative and unfounded. The governor had previously approached the court claiming that he faced threats of arrest and prosecution from the EFCC after his tenure as governor. He accused the anti-graft body of harassing him based on politically motivated and false allegations of corruption. Sanwo-Olu sought a court order to prevent the EFCC from investigating or prosecuting him following the completion of his tenure.
The EFCC, through its legal representative, Hadiza Afegbua, denied all allegations of intimidation or threats toward Sanwo-Olu. A key affidavit from EFCC officer Ufuoma Ezire asserted that there had been no investigation into the governor or any of his staff, nor had they been invited for questioning by the agency. The agency further claimed that the accusations presented by the governor’s legal team were baseless and misleading, emphasizing that no credible evidence had been brought before the court to justify the claims.
Sanwo-Olu’s lawsuit had raised concerns about the violation of his constitutional rights, specifically his right to personal liberty and freedom from arbitrary detention. The governor had asked the court to declare that the threats of investigation, arrest, or detention were unlawful under Nigeria’s constitution.
In response, the EFCC countered that no such threat existed, and that the case filed by Sanwo-Olu was a speculative effort to prevent any future legal actions that might arise from ongoing political controversies. The EFCC also noted that no formal petition or credible intelligence had been presented that would justify such actions against the governor.
As the case continues to unfold, it was revealed that the governor’s legal team had recently withdrawn the original summons and replaced it with a new application. Despite claims of proper service of documents, there were discrepancies in the court file regarding proof of service, which led to the adjournment of the case until November 26.
The outcome of this legal battle is expected to have implications for the future handling of corruption allegations involving public officials.
