Suit seeking to compel CCB to reveal INEC chair’s asset declaration fixed for Monday

The motion on notice filed by an applicant Emmanuel Agonsi was scheduled for a hearing on Monday by the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, John Tsoho.

News Agency of Nigeria • September 25, 2022

The Abuja Division of the Federal High Court will on September 26 hear a motion seeking an order compelling the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) to release details of the asset declaration forms of INEC chairman Mahmood Yakubu.

The motion on notice filed by an applicant, Emmanuel Agonsi, to the effect, was scheduled for a hearing on Monday by the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, John Tsoho.

The hearing notices had been issued to parties in the matter.

Mr Agonsi, through his lawyer, Solomon Apke, had, in 2021, sued CCB and Mr Yakubu as first and second respondents, respectively.

Mr Agonsi, in a motion on notice, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/33/2021, dated January 24 and filed January 25, also sought an order of mandamus directing the CCB to release to him details of the asset declaration forms of Mr Yakubu’s unmarried adult children in its custody as requested in his letter of December 17, 2020; and accept payment of the appropriate fees from him forthwith.

The applicant further prayed the court for an order of mandamus directing the first respondent (CCB) to forthwith produce for the examination of the court certified copies of the assets declaration forms of the INEC chairman and his unmarried adult children submitted to CCB for the period between 2007 and 2012 when he held office as executive secretary, Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETFUND) and as INEC chairman between 2015 and 2020, and any other ones declared thereafter.

He, therefore, sought the following reliefs: “A declaration that the first respondent has a statutory and public duty to furnish the applicant information and details concerning the second respondent as contained in the applicant’s letter of request dated December 17, 2020.

“A declaration that the refusal or failure of the 1st respondent to respond to or comply with the applicant’s request as contained in his letter dated 17th December 2020 constitutes a refusal/failure of the 1st respondent’s statutory and/or public duty to the applicant and is therefore unlawful, illegal, abuse of powers, abuse of discretion and ultra views.”

(NAN)

We have recently deactivated our website's comment provider in favour of other channels of distribution and commentary. We encourage you to join the conversation on our stories via our Facebook, Twitter and other social media pages.