On Thursday Ibrahim Lamorde, the former chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), took his battle against a Senate probe to the Federal High Court of Abuja. Festus Keyamo, the former chairman’s attorney, filed a suit claiming that it was illegal for the Senate to compel him to appear before it regarding issues concerning an office he has vacated.
On Thursday Ibrahim Lamorde, the former chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), took his battle against a Senate probe to the Federal High Court of Abuja. Festus Keyamo, the former chairman’s attorney, filed a suit claiming that it was illegal for the Senate to compel him to appear before it regarding issues concerning an office he has vacated.
Mr. Lamorde is under investigation for allegedly misappropriating over N1 trillion, being recovered proceeds of corruption. The defendants of the suit were listed as the Senate, the Senate Committee on Ethics, Public Petitions, & Privileges, the Inspector General of Police, and the Director-General of the Department of State Services (DSS).
President Muhammadu Buhari relieved Mr. Lamorde of his post last week. The former chairman is currently out of the country for medical reasons.
For the past week, he has argued that it is unconstitutional for the Senate to request his appearance with a summons rather than a letter of invitation. He has also noted that neither the DSS nor the police can issue a warrant against him without his receipt of a summons.
Below are the text of the lawsuit, and an affidavit in its support:
IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT
HOLDEN AT ABUJA
SUIT NO: FHC/ABJ/CS/934/15
BETWEEN:
IBRAHIM LAMORDE ......................... PLAINTIFF
AND
THE SENATE
THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ETHICS,
PRIVILEGES AND PUBLIC PETITIONS DEFENDANTS
INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE
DIRECTOR-GENERAL,
DEPARTMENT OF STATE SERVICES
ORIGINATING SUMMONS
BROUGHT UNDER:
ORDER 3 RULES 6 AND 7 OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT (CIVIL PROCEDURE) RULES 2009.
INHERENT JURISDICTION OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT
LET:
THE SENATE
THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ETHICS,
PRIVILEGES AND PUBLIC PETITIONS
INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE
DIRECTOR-GENERAL,
DEPARTMENT OF STATE SERVICES
WITHIN 30 (THIRTY) DAYS AFTER SERVICE OF THIS SUMMONS ON THEM, INCLUSIVE OF THE DAY OF SUCH SERVICE CAUSE AN APPEARANCE TO BE ENTERED FOR THEM TO THIS SUMMONS WHICH WAS ISSUED UPON THE APPLICATION OF:
IBRAHIM LAMORDE OF C/O FESTUS KEYAMO CHAMBERS, 13, NOUKCHOTT STREET, NEAR KEYSTONE BANK, WUSE, ZONE 1, ABUJA.
FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
QUESTIONS FOR DETERMINATION:
(1). WHETHER, IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 88 AND 89 OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (AS AMENDED), THE 1ST AND 2ND DEFENDANTS, THEIR OFFICERS, MEMBERS, AGENTS OR PRIVIES CAN “INVITE” THE PLAINTIFF TO APPEAR BEFORE THEM AS A PERSON WHOSE CONDUCT OF AFFAIRS IS BEING INVESTIGATED BY THEM IN RELATION TO ISSUES CONCERNING OFFICE(S) HE HAS ALREADY VACATED.
(2). WHETHER, IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 88 AND 89 OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (AS AMENDED), THE 1ST AND 2ND DEFENDANTS, THEIR OFFICERS, MEMBERS, AGENTS OR PRIVIES CAN REQUEST THE PLAINTIFF TO APPEAR BEFORE THEM BY MERELY WRITING AN INVITATION LETTER TO HIM AND NOT ISSUING A SUMMONS.
(3). WHETHER, IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 88 AND 89 OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (AS AMENDED), THE 1ST AND 2ND DEFENDANTS, THEIR OFFICERS, MEMBERS, AGENTS OR PRIVIES CAN ISSUE A WARRANT AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF WITHOUT FIRST SERVING HIM A SUMMONS.
(4). WHETHER, IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 88 AND 89 OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (AS AMENDED), THE 3RD AND 4TH DEFENDANTS, THEIR OFFICERS, MEMBERS, AGENTS OR PRIVIES CAN EXECUTE ANY WARRANT ISSUED BY THE 1ST AND 2ND DEFENDANTS AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF AND WHICH WAS ISSUED WITHOUT FIRST ISSUING A SUMMONS TO THE PLAINTIFF.
(5). WHETHER, BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 36(1) OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (AS AMENDED) IT IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT TO PREVENT COUNSEL TO THE PLAINTIFF FROM APPEARING ON THE PLAINTIFF’S BEHALF ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF RAISING OBJECTION TO PROCEDURAL DEFECTS IN THE INVITATION TO THE PLAINTIFF TO APPEAR BEFORE THE 2ND DEFENDANT.
CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEFS
(A). A DECLARATION that in view of the provisions of sections 88 and 89 of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), the 1st and 2nd Defendants, their officers, members, agents or privies cannot “invite” the Plaintiff to appear before them as a person whose conduct of affairs is being investigated by them in relation to issues concerning office(s) he has already vacated.
(B). A DECLARATION that in view of the provisions of sections 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), the 1st and 2nd Defendants, their officers, members, agents or privies cannot request the Plaintiff to appear before them by merely writing an invitation letter to him and not issuing a Summons.
(C). A DECLARATION that in view of the provisions of sections 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), the 1st and 2nd Defendants, their officers, members, agents or privies cannot issue a Warrant against the Plaintiff without first serving him a Summons.
(D). A DECLARATION that in view of the provisions of sections 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), the 3rd and 4th Defendants, their officers, members, agents or privies cannot execute any Warrant issued by the 1st and 2nd Defendants against the Plaintiff and which was issued without first issuing a Summons to the Plaintiff.
(E). A DECLARATION that by virtue of section 36(1) of the provisions of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) it is unconstitutional for the 2nd Defendant to prevent counsel to the plaintiff from appearing on the Plaintiff’s behalf only for the purpose of raising objection to procedural defects in the invitation to the Plaintiff to appear before the 2nd Defendant.
(F). AN ORDER of injunction against the 3rd and 4th Defendants restraining them from executing any warrant issued by the 1st and 2nd Defendants against the Plaintiff and which was issued without first issuing a Summons to the Plaintiff.
(G). AN ORDER setting aside all letters of invitation issued against the Plaintiff by the 1st and 2nd Defendants to appear before them as a person being investigated by them in relation to issues concerning his stewardship of office(s) he has already vacated.
(H). AN ORDER of injunction against the 1st and 2nd Defendants restraining them from issuing any Warrant for the arrest of the Plaintiff without first issuing a Summons to the Plaintiff.
(I.) SUCH FURTHER OR OTHER ORDERS as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.
Dated 19th day of November, 2015
FESTUS KEYAMO, ESQ.,
COUNSEL TO THE PLAINTIFF,
FESTUS KEYAMO CHAMBERS,
13 NOUAKCHOTT STREET,
NEAR KEYSTONE BANK,
WUSE ZONE 1,
ABUJA.
08033371229, 08055028515
This summons was taken out by Festus Keyamo, Esq. of No. 13 Nouakchott Street, Wuse Zone 1, Abuja.
The Defendants may enter appearance personally or by a legal practitioner either by handing in the appropriate form duly completed at the Federal High Court Registry, Abuja or sending them to that office by post.
Note: If the Defendants do not enter appearance within the time and at theplace above mentioned, such orders will be made and proceedings may be taken as the Judge may think fit and expedient.
SEALED at the Federal High Court Registry, Abuja.
_______________________
JUDGE
______________________
REGISTRAR
Dated 19th day of November, 2015
FESTUS KEYAMO, ESQ.,
COUNSEL TO THE PLAINTIFF,
FESTUS KEYAMO CHAMBERS,
13 NOUAKCHOTT STREET,
NEAR KEYSTONE BANK,
WUSE ZONE 1,
ABUJA.
08033371229, 08055028515.
FOR SERVICE ON:
1ST & 2ND DEFENDANTS,
National Assembly Complex,
Three Arms Zone,
Abuja.
3RD DEFENDANT,
Force Headquarters,
Louis Edet House,
Abuja.
4TH DEFENDANT,
Department of State Services,
Aso Drive,
Abuja.
IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT
HOLDEN AT ABUJA
SUIT NO: FHC/ABJ/CS/934/15
BETWEEN:
IBRAHIM LAMORDE ......................... PLAINTIFF
AND
THE SENATE
THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ETHICS,
PRIVILEGES AND PUBLIC PETITIONS DEFENDANTS
INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE
DIRECTOR-GENERAL,
DEPARTMENT OF STATE SERVICES
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ORIGINATING SUMMONS
I, Daniel Ajibulu, male, adult, Nigerian Citizen of No. 13, Nouakchott Street, Near Keystone Bank, Wuse Zone 1, Abuja, hereby make Oath and state as follows:
That I am a litigation secretary in the Law Firm of Festus Keyamo Chambers, counsel to the Plaintiff, and by virtue of my position, I am familiar with the facts of this case and where the facts deposed are not within my personal knowledge, I have been informed by the Plaintiff and/or my Principal in Chambers both of whom I verily believe.
That I have the authority of my employer and that of the Plaintiff to depose to this Affidavit and now depose as follows:
That the Plaintiff is the former Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and also a former Director of Operations of the same body. That the 1st Defendant is the arm of government charged with the responsibility of enacting laws for the country.
That the 2nd Defendant is a standing Committee set up by the 1st Defendant for the purposes of investigating petitions whilst the 3rd and 4th Defendants are heads of security agencies in Nigeria responsible for enforcement of laws, including the resolution of the 1st and 2nd Defendants.
That sometime in August, 2015, the 1st Defendant referred a petition written by one George Uboh against the Plaintiff to the 2nd Defendant for investigation.
That on the 19th of August, 2015, the 2nd Defendant wrote a Letter of Invitation to the Plaintiff as the Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission urging him to attend a meeting with the 2nd Defendant on 26thAugust, 2015. The said Letter captioned “Invitation to a meeting of the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions” is hereby attached as EXHIBIT A.
That owing to pre-existing engagements, the Plaintiff could not attend the meeting fixed for 26th August, 2015 whereupon the 2nd Defendant wrote another Letter of Invitation to the Plaintiff proposing a meeting for 5thNovember, 2015.
That the Plaintiff communicated his inability to attend the meeting fixed for 5th November, 2015 to the 2ndDefendant vide a Letter of 5th November, 2015.
That on the 9th of November, 2015, the Plaintiff was relieved of his duties as the Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and was directed by the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to proceed on a 3-month terminal leave.
That pursuant to the foregoing, the Plaintiff handed over all obligations, responsibilities and duties pertaining to his office to Ibrahim Mustapha Magu who was appointed Acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and with the President’s approval, the Plaintiff travelled out of the country for his medical treatment.
That the 2nd Defendant subsequently issued another invitation to the Plaintiff dated 11th November, 2015 (in which he was addressed as the “the immediate past Chairman”) urging him to appear before the 2nd Defendant on 17thNovember, 2015. The said Letter is hereby attached as EXHIBIT B.
That on the 17th November, 2015, the Plaintiff could not honour the Invitation as he was out of the country on his 3-month terminal leave.
That the Plaintiff was represented by his counsel, Mr. Festus Keyamo at the proceedings of the 2nd Defendant on the 17th of November, 2015 but the Chairman of the 2nd Defendant stopped him mid-way in his introductory remarks in raising objections to the invitation and the unconstitutionality of investigating the conduct of affairs of the Plaintiff who had vacated his office, on the grounds that the Senate Committees prohibit those summoned to the Senate to be absent but represented by legal practitioners even for the purpose of raising objections to procedural defects alone.
That despite the protestations of the Plaintiff’s counsel, the 2nd Defendant denied him audience and threatened to issue a warrant of arrest and compel the 3rd and 4th Defendants to arrest the Plaintiff and produce him before it on the 24th of November, 2015.
That the 2nd Defendant has expressed the intention to continue subjecting the Plaintiff to investigation and enquiry despite having left the office he was occupying when he was invited to appear in respect of his conducts of affairs of that office and have fixed a further meeting with the Plaintiff for 24th November, 2015.
That it is in the interest of justice for this Honourable court to grant the reliefs sought in this originating Summons.
That I depose to this affidavit in good faith while believing its contents as correct and in accordance with the Oaths Act, Cap O1, LFN, 2004.
____________
DEPONENT
Sworn to at the Federal High Court Registry, Abuja
This..............day of.......................................2015
BEFORE ME
COMMISSIONER FOR OATH