The Federal Government has filed a counter affidavit before a Federal High Court which is hearing a matter instituted by the suspended CBN Governor, Mallam Lamido Sanusi seeking a perpetual injunction restraining the SSS and police from arresting him.
Legal counsel for Mallam Sanusi, Kola Awodein has told the court that there is no truth to the allegation and that it is a gimmick being used by the respondents to try and further harass his client.
Awodein said, “The seizure of the applicant’s international passport by the third respondent, is a violation of his freedom of movement.
“The first to third respondents give conflicting reasons as to the complaint made against the applicant: This conflict goes to show that they acted without due process of the law.
“The allegation against the applicant as to funding of terrorism, is an afterthought by the respondents, which is not backed by facts, as there is no reasonable suspicion that the applicant committed any crime.
“The law clearly defines how such duties should be performed, and so, I invite your Lordship to hold that the applicant has a cause of action against the respondent.”
Counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. Fabian Ajogwu (SAN), asked the court to throw out the suit for lack of jurisdiction.
Ajogwu said, “My Lord, this suit is speculative, hypocritical and an attempt to shield the applicant from the machinery of the administration of justice, which the Federal Government has started.
“My Lord, we respectfully submit that the applicant is not entitled to a grant of perpetual injunction, restraining the respondents from performing their constitutional duties.”
He said, “Section 254 (c) 1 (d) of the constitution vests exclusive jurisdiction in the NIC , with respect to civil cases or matters touching on employment, labour or industrial relations.
“We respectfully urge the court to hold that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the reliefs sought by the applicant, and strike out the suit.”
Ajogwu seeking precedence, quoted Justice Niki Tobi, a retired Justice of the Supreme Court,
“A court cannot grant perpetual injunction on a mere prima facie case; the applicant’s suit is basically an action to shield him from the machinery of administration of justice, which has been kick-started by the respondents.”
“I, therefore, urge your Lordship, like the Biblical Pontius Pilate, to wash your hands off this case, as it is not the affairs of this honourable court .”
Awodein argued that it was not the case.
He said, “It cannot be suggested that the applicant is restraining the respondents from performing their duties, but they must be restrained from doing so, without due process of the law.
“The seizure of the applicant’s passport by the third respondent, is a violation of his freedom of movement.
“The first to third respondents give conflicting reasons as to the complaint made against the applicant: This conflict goes to show that they acted without the due process of the law.
“The allegations against the applicant as to funding of terrorism, is an afterthought by the respondent, which is not backed by facts, as there is no reasonable suspicion that the applicant committed any crime.
“The law clearly defines how such duties should be performed, and so, I invite your Lordship to hold that the applicant has a cause of action against the respondent.”
Justice Ibrahim Buba after taking parties’ argument adjourned ruling till April 3.