The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has urged the Federal High Court in Abuja to dismiss a fundamental rights suit filed by Lagos State Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu.
The suit aims to prevent the EFCC from arresting or prosecuting Sanwo-Olu after his tenure.
The anti-graft body had dismissed the suit as speculative and a mere conjecture.
Recall that the Lagos State Government had denied any involvement in the suit, stating that Sanwo-Olu never authorized any lawyer to file it. Lawal Pedro, the Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, emphasized that Sanwo-Olu has nearly three years left in office and enjoys constitutional immunity, making the lawsuit unnecessary.
“We need to clarify that Mr Babajide Sanwo-Olu, at no time, sued or briefed any legal practitioner to file a suit on his behalf concerning the above subject matter,” the statement read in part.
The EFCC filed its counter-affidavit on October 31. Ufuoma Ezire, a superintendent and litigation secretary, swore to the counter-affidavit, denying claims of harassment, threats, or investigations against Sanwo-Olu or his staff.
“That I know as a fact that the defendant invites members of the public for interview, interrogation or any engagement vide a written invitation, phone calls or text messages by any of its officers who shall introduce himself or herself by name, rank, designation, and Section to enable the invitee to trace the officer easily.
“That no officer of the defendant could have invited the plaintiff or his aides without furnishing them with such detailed particulars of himself.
“That contrary to the depositions in paragraphs 5 of the plaintiff affidavit, the defendant did not intimidate, harass or threaten the plaintiff or subject him to any trauma,” he said.
He said the agency was unaware of any threat to arrest Mr Sanwo-Olu’s aides.
He also stated that the anti-graft agency was not aware of the “accusation of maladministration or diversion of Lagos State’s funds nor is it aware of any likelihood of a breach of the applicant’s right to liberty or right to own movable and immovable properties in this case.”
“That the action of the plaintiff,, in this case is mere conjecture and speculations as there is no petition or any intel gathered before the defendant to warrant the men and officers of same to invite, threaten to arrest the plaintiff at the moment.
“That the entirety of the dispositions contained in the plaintiffs’ affidavit are not true, as the application is misconceived and brought in bad faith to mislead this honourable court.
“That the defendant is not in a position to deny or confirm the depositions in paragraphs 4 and 4(iii) as the defendant is not a party to the conversation between deponent and the plaintiff.
