Court summons EFCC, bank over Fayose’s account

A federal High Court sitting in Ado Ekiti yesterday ordered the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and a new generation bank. to appear before it on July 4, this year to defend its action against Governor Ayodele Fayose.

The anti-graft agency was alleged to have ordered the bank to freeze Fayose’s personal account numbers 1003126654 and 9013074033 for alleged money laundering running into N1.2 billion being money allegedly taken from the $2.1 billion arms fund in the office of the former National Security Adviser, Col. Bello Dasuki.

Dissatisfied with the action, Fayose through his lawyer, Mr. Mike Ozekhome (SAN), had through an ex parte order deposed to on June 24, this year by Bimpe Olatemiju sought a mandatory order unfreezing the accounts belonging and operated by him pending the determination of his interlocutory application.Joined in the suit are the EFCC (first defendant) and the bank (second defendant).

The order was supported by 18-paragraph affidavit, a lone exhibit, which was a letter issued to Governor Fayose by the bank confirming that the EFCC actually placed a restriction order on the accounts and a written address.

He also sought the leave of the court for the service of the originating summons on the defendants in their various addresses outside the jurisdiction of the court as contained on the order papers, supported by 17-paragraph affidavit.

Ozekhome said the order was brought pursuant to order 26 rules 8(1) of the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rule 2009 and Section 44(1) of the 1999 constitution, which gives the court the discretionary powers to adjudicate on
such matter.

Citing the case of Abdulaziz Nyako Vs. EFCC to buttress his position that the anti-graft agency has no power to freeze Fayose’s account without valid court order, Ozekhome added the action was a flagrant negation of the Section 308 of the constitution, which conferred absolute immunity on the government against civil and criminal procedure.

Delivering his ruling, Justice Taiwo Taiwo, averred that he quite understood that the applicant (Fayose) enjoys immunity and that the court can adjudicate on this matter as canvassed by the counsel to the plaintiff, but he pointed out that the relief he basically sought was a mandatory order of the court.
“I hereby ordered the first and second respondents to appear before this honourable court on July 4, 2016 and show cause why the order should be refused.

“This is not a refusal of the order, I have not refused it, but I only put it in abeyance which I said without prejudice to what will be the position of the respondents, the judge ruled.’ ’

“But a leave is granted for the service of the defendants with the originating summons in their respective addresses as contained on the order papers”, the Judge ruled.