Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court on Monday fixed May 15 for a ruling on former minister of power and steel, Olu Agunloye‘s preliminary objection.

Mr Agunloye is challenging the power of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to prosecute him regarding infractions in the alleged $6 billion Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Station in Taraba.

In the suit, marked FCT/HC/CR/617/22, the EFCC charged the former minister with seven counts bordering on forgery, disobedience of presidential order, and corruption.

He was alleged to have, among others, on May 22, 2003, awarded a contract titled “Construction of a 3,960 megawatt Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Station on a build, operate, and transfer basis to Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited without any budgetary provision, approval, and cash backing.

The prosecution also alleged that it traced some suspicious payments made by Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited to the former minister’s accounts.

The defendant, however, pleaded not guilty to the charge preferred against him.

Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie adjourned ruling on the preliminary objection after the parties finished giving their arguments.

”Ruling on the preliminary objection is adjourned until May 15,” Mr Onwuegbuzie ruled.

At the resumed hearing on the case, Adeola Adedipe (SAN), a counsel for Mr Agunloye, told the court that the EFCC lacked the power to prosecute his client.

He told the court that, contrary to constitutional provision, the AGF did not give the EFCC the fiat to investigate and institute proceedings in the case against him.

Mr Adedipe cited section 174 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), told the court that instead of getting such a fiat from the AGF, the EFCC got it from the solicitor general of the federation.

He urged the court to take judicial notice under section 124 of the Evidence Act.

Mr Adedipe informed the court that the current AGF, Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, was sworn in on August 21, 2023, while the prosecution filed the charge against Agunloye on September 7, 2023.

He argued that the commission lacked both investigative and prosecutorial powers under sections 6, 7, and 46 of the EFCC Act, 2004.

The defence counsel noted that the offences allegedly committed by Mr Agunloye were based on his (Mr Agunloye’s) activities as a public officer.

He added that the former minister was alleged to have awarded the contract for the power plant without budgetary provision, approval, and cash backing.

Mr Adedipe further argued that the defendant was accused of alleged disobedience to the directives of the president and forgery of a letter dated May 22, 2003.

He cited legal authorities to back his assertion and submitted that the allegations against the former minister did not constitute financial crimes and, as such, could not be investigated and prosecuted by the EFCC.

He stated, “These allegations do not constitute financial crimes that can be lawfully investigated and prosecuted by the EFCC, pursuant to its powers under sections 6, 7, and 46 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act, in consonance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Nwokobi vs. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2002), 6 NWLR (Part 1.1826) 293.”

He further argued, “Not having the mandatory statutory powers to investigate the allegations in the charge ab initio, I know that the purported investigation and current prosecution of this charge by the EFCC is ultra vires its powers.”

He, therefore, urged the court to grant their application.

Responding, the prosecution counsel, Abba Mohammed, said the Supreme Court had decided in FRN vs. Osahor and others that the AGF’s power under section 174 of the constitution is not exclusive to him.

According to him, this implied that other authorities could initiate criminal proceedings in court, adding that in this instance, the AGF did not complain that the EFCC usurped his power.

Mr Mohammed added that the Appeal Court had decided in Audu vs. FRN that the EFCC can prosecute offenders under the ICPC Act.

He urged the court to take judicial notice that the solicitor-general of the federation, who signed the fiat to prosecute the defendant, was the acting AGF as of August 8, 2023, as there was no substantive AGF then.

The prosecution counsel urged the court to decline to grant the application as prayed by the defendant.

( NAN)