Admin l Monday, June 5, 2023
ABUJA, Nigeria – Former Minister of State for Labour and Employment, Mr. Festus Keyamo appears to have bitten more than he can chew as his petition against former Vice President of Nigeria and candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP in the February 25 election has boomeranged, with the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja ordering him to pay the total sum of N10 million for filling frivolous application and an abuse of court processes.
He is to pay N5 million in favour of Atiku Abubakar and another N5 million in favour of the Independent and Corrupt Practices Commission, ICPC for abuse of court processes and wasting the time of the court.
Recall that loquacious lawyer, who was a spokesperson of the Tinubu/Shettima Presidential Campaign Council filed suit – FHC/ABJ/CS/84/2023 – on January 20, seeking an order compelling the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Independent and Corrupt Practices Commission, ICPC and the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) to probe and prosecute Atiku Abubakar for money laundering.
The lawyer filed the suit based on the audio message purported to be the telephone conversation between the former Vice President and his former aide, Achimugu, about how Atiku conspired to siphon public funds with Special Purpose Vehicles, SPVs.
Festus Keyamo, acting in a manner characteristics of the military era also gave 72-hour ultimatum to the the investigating agencies, the EFCC, ICPC and the CCB, threatening to go to court at expiration of the ultimatum.
He alleged that Abubakar was in violation of Section 18(2) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, and Section 96(1) of the Penal Code and therefore not qualified to contest the February 25 presidential election.
But ruling on the matter, Justice James Omotosho of described his application as an abuse of court processes and awarded the sum of N5 million fine each in favour of Abubakar and the ICPC.
Justice Omotosho, described the suit as “frivolous, vexatious and abuse of court processes,” and directed Festus Keyamo to pay the fines at 10 per cent interest per annum until the total sum is liquidated.
The judge gave the order following an oral application by counsel for Atiku, Benson Igbanoi, and that of the ICPC, Oluwakemi Odogun, for cost after the matter was dismissed.
But Atiku (1st defendant), through his lawyer, filed a notice of preliminary objection, seeking for an order dismissing the suit for being incompetent, lack of locus standi, want of jurisdiction and for non-disclosure of reasonable cause against him.
The EFCC, ICPC and the CCB, in their separate preliminary objections, also challenged the competency of the suit and jurisdiction of the court.
Justice Omotosho held that Festus Keyamo had two issues for determination, namely whether the suit was frivolous and whether the relief sought by Keyamo could be granted. The judge, who said the jurisdiction of the court would be determined, also said that the locus standi of the applicant would also come under scrutiny.
“Locus standi is the capacity of a party to institute an action. It interrogates what is the business of the plaintiff with the defendants. The need for proper locus standi is to prevent busy body from instituting a suit and restraining them from wasting the time of the court,” he said.
He said though the court did not say that the ex-minister did not have a right to write statutory agencies to investigate Abubakar, but that he had not shown why he was affected by Abubakar’s action.
“A citizen of a country has a right to report crime and that cannot be an infraction on fundamental rights of any person.
“But the complainant is to complain to the statutory agencies and not to drag the 1st defendant with the agencies to court to seek an order to compel the agencies to investigate the suspect,” he said.
Justice Omotosho held that Investigating authorities had the discretionary powers to investigate any case and to know if such case would warrant any prosecution or not, citing previous cases to back his decision.
“The law is that the court cannot compel investigating agencies to perform their discretionary powers,’ he said, adding that it was unheard of that a citizen would give statutory agencies 72-hour to investigate and prosecute an alleged offence. And immediately after the 72 hours, an action was filed.
