Emefiele: Court Announces Date To Deliver Judgment On Ex-CBN Gov’s Fundamental Rights

The Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court on Monday (today) scheduled January 8th, 2024 as the date for delivering judgment in the fundamental rights suit brought by the former governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Godwin Emefiele.

Today, after hearing arguments from both sides involved in the case, Justice Olukayode Adeniyi, reserved a ruling on the preliminary objections filed by all four respondents in the suit, which is identified as FCT/HC/CV/040/2023.

Naija News reports that Emefiele had taken legal action against the Federal Government, the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), the Executive Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), and the Commission itself.

The embattled former CBN Governor’s suit aims to enforce his fundamental rights to life, personal liberty, fair hearing, and freedom of movement.

Emefiele is seeking a declaration from the court that his continued detention by the first and second respondents since June 10, 2023, and subsequent transfer to the custody of the third and fourth respondents on October 26, 2023, without being arraigned in court, is unlawful.

He claimed that the respondents’ disregard for multiple valid existing court orders to release him constitutes a serious violation of his fundamental rights to life and personal liberty, as guaranteed by the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended) and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

Consequently, he requested an injunction to prevent the respondents from further arresting or detaining him after his release by the court without presenting any criminal charges against him.

Additionally, he sought compensation of N1 billion in his favour for the infringement of his fundamental rights.

Earlier, Emefiele’s counsel, Mathew Burkaa, SAN, informed the court that his client had been unlawfully detained for 151 days, which exceeds the legal limit of 48 hours.

Therefore, he urged the court to render a judgment and grant damages in favour of his client.

Burkaa contended that the first and second respondents’ challenge to the authority of the deponent, Dr Okanta Emefiele, in submitting his affidavit in support of the originating summons demonstrated more.

He asserted that there was no meeting between the deponent and the applicant, indicating that the Federal Government had kept him isolated.

In his view, this alone provides sufficient grounds for the court to rule in favor of Emefiele, emphasizing that every Nigerian deserves the court’s safeguard.

Furthermore, he argued that Emefiele’s rights had been violated and expressed concern that he might face further arrest based on the respondents’ actions.

Burkaa maintained that the continued harassment of the applicant by the respondents’ agents could ultimately impact Emefiele’s well-being.

In his response, counsel for the first and second respondents, Oyin Koleosho, SAN, urged the court to dismiss the suit for lacking in merit.

He submitted that the government’s opposition to the suit was based on the authority and the source of information of the deponent to the affidavit in support of the originating summons. He said that Emefiele was transferred to the custody of EFCC on October 26, while the application was filed on October 31.

He stated that during that time frame, there was no contact or communication between Emefiele and the deponent.

Additionally, he pointed out that in Emefiele’s supplementary affidavit, there was no mention of the specific time, date, and location where the applicant and the deponent had met.

He argued that this omission made the deposition invalid.

The counsel for the third and fourth respondents, Farouk Abdullah, requested the court to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds of being misconceived and brought in bad faith.

He informed the court that Emefiele was taken into EFCC custody on October 26, and the commission obtained a remand order on October 27 to detain the applicant for 14 days.

He emphasized that while he respected the activities of the Federal Government, there were various ministries, departments, and agencies with distinct mandates.

According to him, Emefiele made certain allegations in his originating summons, accusing the Department of State Service (DSS) of committing certain infractions.

He further stated that the DSS should have been included as a party in the lawsuit.

Earlier, the respondents’ counsels had presented their respective preliminary objections against the lawsuit brought before the court by Emefiele.