JUSTICE Gabriel Kolawole of the Federal High Court in Abuja, has accused Abubakar Malami, SAN, attorney general of the federation, AGF, of abusing court process by instituting a case against the leadership of the senate.
Justice Kolawole described as “an abuse of court process” the decision of the AGF to file the forgery charges against Bukola Saraki, Senate President and Ike Ekweremadu, deputy senate president, during the pendency of a suit filed by Senator Gilbert Nnaji challenging the competence of the police report which was used by Malami to file his case against Senate leadership.
The judge, while querying the motive of the Malami, who he noted had participated in the Nnaji case before his appointment as the AGF, wondered why Malami was in a “desperate haste” to proceed with the charge “when he was aware of the pendency of a suit challenging the report on which the charge was based.”
The judge said he would have dismissed it but could not having found that the filing of the charge amounted to an abuse of court process because the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory has coordinate jurisdiction with his court.
Nnaji had filed the substantive suit on July 23, 2015, after learning that the police was about to publish its investigation report on the forgery reported to it through a petition by Senator Suleiman Othman Hunkuyi of the Senate Unity Forum.
On July 27, 2015, the judge refused the plaintiff ex-parte prayer for an order directing parties to maintain status quo pending the determination of the substantive suit, and instead, directed the 1st defendant — IGP — (because a substantive AGF had yet to be appointed) — to show cause as to why such order should not be granted and adjourned to August 4, 2015.
On the next date, the IGP and the Solicitor General of the Federation, Taiwo Abidogun (who represented the AGF), did not show cause as ordered by the court, but filed a notice of objection challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear the suit.
Hunkuyi, represented by a team of lawyers including Mamman Osuman (SAN), Dele Adesina (SAN) and Abubakar Malami (SAN), applied to be joined as party to the suit. Hunkuyi’s motion was later struck out when his lawyers did not attend court to move it.
While the substantive case by Nnaji and the notices of objection by IGP and AGF were pending, Malami was appointed the substantive AGF, shortly after which Justice Kolawole fixed hearing of the suit and all pending objections for July 6, 2016.
To stop the arraignment of Saraki, Ekweremadu and two others named in the charge, Nnaji went back before Justice Kolawole with the ex-parte motion for restraining orders against the IGP and AGF.
The motion was heard on June 27, by Justice Kolawole, who fixed June 28 for ruling. Saraki and others were also arraigned before the High Court of the FCT on the charge filed by the AGF June 27.
In his ruling on June 28, Justice Kolawole faulted the decision of the AGF to proceed to file a charge based on the police report when the suit challenging the report was still pending.
He held that although, as the AGF, he had the constitutional powers to institute and discontinue criminal proceedings on behalf of the Federal Government, he must exercise such powers in public interest.
Justice Kolawole noted that, although the charge was filed by a lawyer in the Federal Ministry of Justice, the official acted as an agent of the AGF, who was listed as one of the leading senior lawyers that filed an application for joinder on behalf of Hunkuyi, who until his (Malami’s) appointment, was his client.
He, however, refused the applicant’s request to quash the police report on the grounds that the report was not attached to the motion and that it was not placed before the court.
Justice Kolawole also refused to void the charge before the FCT High Court on the grounds that the charge was before another court of equal jurisdiction.
He also rejected an ex-parte motion for injunction restraining the Inspector General of Police and the Attorney General of the Federation from going ahead with the prosecution of the Senate President, Bukola Saraki and three others on charges of forgery of the Senate Standing Orders 2011.
“It is not sufficient, when the Supreme Court’s decision in Senator Abaraham Adesanya v. President of Nigeria & another (1981) 5 SC 112 is applied, for the plaintiff, who has not shown that he is one of the defendants listed in the criminal charge attached as Exhibit B to this motion ex-parte, to be conferred, in the context of the provision of Section 6(6)(b) of the Constitution 999 (as amended) with the cloak of an ‘aggrieved’ person who ought to be granted access to ventilate his grievance and to seek the interim orders in his motion ex-parte.”
The Federal Government had on June 10, 2016 preferred two counts of criminal conspiracy and forgery of the Standing Rules of the Senate used for the leadership election of the presiding officers of the Senate in June last year against Saraki; the Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremadu; and two others.
The two other co-accused are a former Clerk to the National Assembly, Salisu Maikasu, and his deputy, Benedict Efeturi. — Punch
— July 4, 2016 @ 3:43 GMT
|
