Drama as EFCC tightens security around ailing Babalakin OPERATIVES of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), including mobile policemen, have since last Tuesday evening besieged Lagos University Teaching Hospital (LUTH), Idi-Araba, Lagos, where the Chairman of Bi-Courtney Limited, Dr. Bolanle Olawale Babalakin, has been on admission. The operatives were, however, prevented from carrying out their mission by the management of the hospital, which denied them access to the private ward where Babalakin was admitted since last Wednesday. The operatives were said to have initially attempted to force their way into Babalakin’s ward, leading to a face-off with the hospital personnel that lasted till about 1.00 a.m. the following day. Guardian Newspapers reported that after failing in their mission, several policemen and plain-clothes operatives remained at the entrance of his ward and its adjoining areas. His company and the anti-graft agency are in court over fraud charges against him. But his proposed arraignment alongside four others at the Lagos High Court, Ikeja, over their alleged roles in a N4.7 billion Delta State money transfer fraud, could not go on due to his absence over ill-health. To forestall his further arraignment at the Lagos High Court, Babalakin (SAN) had secured a Federal High Court (FHC), Lagos leave to apply for certiorari (an order quashing an action) and prohibition. Justice Mohammed Idris made the order, following a motion ex-parte filed by the applicant’s counsel, Mr. Wale Akoni (SAN), seeking an order of court for leave to apply for certiorari and prohibition against the respondents, restraining them from taking further steps in the arraignment, pending the hearing of the motion before the FHC. Also joined in the suit is the Attorney-General of the Federation. Besides, the Federal Government, claiming breaches, recently terminated the concession contract for the Lagos-Ibadan Expressway granted to Bi-Courtney Consortium on May 8, 2009, but signed on May 26, 2009. Bi-Courtney yesterday condemned the action of the agency, describing it as a violation of Babalakin’s rights and an attempt to thwart justice. The statement by the company’s spokesman, Dipo Kehinde, observed: “This is a new trend in judicial administration in Nigeria and it reflects desperation by EFCC to violate provisions of the law and constitution in order to circumvent justice, and a violation of the basic human rights of the citizen. “It is noteworthy that this brings back sad memories of the days of Gen. Sani Abacha, when the rights of Nigerians were trampled upon with ease.” Babalakin’s aides had complained that the EFCC despite the court order was trailing him. But EFCC’s spokesman, Wilson Uwujare, told The Guardian that the embattled businessman was being put under surveillance. His words: “Our commission has no order restraining us from arresting him. What Babalakin sought was an order of certiorari to quash the charges. The court only granted him leave, so we are keeping eyes on him. If he is still in the hospital, our men will be there, if he moves to his house, our men will equally go there. “The order does not prevent us from arresting him. The order was only for leave to apply for an order of certiorari to quash the charges against him and for it to act as a stay of proceedings at the Lagos High Court where he is facing criminal charges of money laundering.” The EFCC had filed a 27-count charge against Babalakin, Stabilini Visioni Limited, Bi-Courtney Limited alongside Alex Okoh and Remix Nigeria Limited for fraudulently assisting former governor of Delta State, James Ibori, to transfer various sums of money through third party to some foreign accounts under the guise of buying a Challenger Jet airliner. Although Okoh was around for the arraignment scheduled before Justice Adeniji Onigbanjo,  Babalakin was absent. But Babalakin’s counsel, Mr. Ebun Sofunde (SAN), informed the court that his client is currently on admission at LUTH over an undisclosed sickness. Sofunde informed the court that he had earlier forwarded a letter to the registrar of the court, which contained a medical report by one Dr. Charles Harmon about Babalakin’s health. He also informed the court that Babalakin’s health deteriorated immediately after he appeared before the EFCC office in Abuja on the November 26, 2012 for questioning. He subsequently urged the court to adjourn the matter to allow his client recover. But EFCC’s Counsel, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), expressed his disappointment at the turn of event, saying he was shocked at the antics being employed by Babalakin. He informed the court that on the said date that Babalakin purportedly took ill, he was in the EFCC office and did not show any sign of illness. Idris, in his ruling, granted the applicant leave to apply for certiorari and prohibition as prayed. “I have gone through the application before this honourable court, and I would confine myself to the affidavit and statement. “At this stage, the court should be satisfied that the applicant has a locus standi, and that a prima facie case exist before the court. “The fact that the applicant has a locus standi, and that a prima facie case exists, is clear, but I will not dabble into the merit of the substantive suit. “A serious issue on the constitutionality of acts by the public officers has been raised, and going by the various documents and statements tendered before this court, I do not think this application is frivolous. “Relief one of the applicant is hereby granted as prayed, and leave is hereby granted for the applicant to make an application for certiorari and prohibition before this honourable court. “However, reliefs two and three, of the applicant are unnecessary, and are hereby refused”, Idris declared. He therefore adjourned the case to December 12 for hearing of the applicant’s motion on notice. In the ex-parte motion, the applicant was seeking three reliefs: First, praying the court for leave to apply for Certiorari and Prohibition against the respondents, an order that the leave granted by court should operate as a stay of further proceedings before the high court, and secondly, for a positive order stopping the EFCC from taking further steps in the arraignment of the applicant. Akoni stated that the applicant was not asking the court to carry out an appellate review of the respondent’s act, nor challenge the jurisdiction of the Ikeja High Court, but only to determine the legality of the charge preferred against the applicant. He argued that the charge was not in accordance with the provisions of the law, as the Attorney-General of the Federation and the EFCC lacked the power to prefer a charge against the applicant, without the fiat of the Attorney General of Lagos State. He said that the decision of the respondents to prefer the charge, was not done in accordance with the provisions of the constitution, the EFCC act, and the Criminal Code Laws of Lagos State. “The authority to bring a charge at the high court of a state is that of the attorney-general of that state, whose fiat must be clearly exhibited on the face of the charge. “There is nothing on the face of the charge to show that the AG Lagos is part of, or has authorised by fiat, the preferring of this charge. “The Attorney-General of the Federation and the EFCC have no power to prefer a charge in Lagos state, there must be a clear demonstration of the fiat of the AG Lagos State on the charge. “We, therefore, urge the court to grant the reliefs sought by the applicant in the interest of justice and in line with the applicant’s right to fair hearing as provided in the Constitution”, he said. Akoni argued that the respondents had nothing to loose if their prayers were granted, as it would only subsist for 14 days, but where it was not granted, substantial injustice would have been done to the applicant. The arraignment, scheduled for November 29, was also adjourned to December 12 due to non-production of the applicant.

Browse More Articles

Tweet

Written by NEWSTRAWL ONLINE UPDATE

Sodiq Oyeleke is a Media, Human Resources, Project Management and Public Relations Practitioner