In 2022, ahead of the 2023 general elections, Atiku was caught on tape admitting to his involvement in a complex conspiracy that for years took advantage of federal contracting expenditures.
Mike Ozekhome, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and counsel for the Peoples Democratic Party candidate in the 2023 presidential election, Atiku Abubakar has urged the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) not to interfere in a case filed by Mr Festus Keyamo, SAN against the former vice president over the alleged diversion of public funds through 'Special Purpose Vehicles (SPV)'.
In 2022, ahead of the 2023 general elections, Atiku was caught on tape admitting to his involvement in a complex conspiracy that for years took advantage of federal contracting expenditures.
The viral audio was shared by Atiku’s former aide, Michael Achimugu. In the audio, the former vice-president explained how he took charge of setting up onshore shell businesses to serve as a conduit for syphoning funds from public works contracts for himself and former President Olusegun Obasanjo.
But the PDP Presidential Campaign Council dismissed the allegations and accused Achimugu of being sponsored by the presidential candidate of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), Bola Tinubu, to distract Nigerians.
Following Achimugu’s revelation, Festus Keyamo, a spokesperson for the APC Presidential Campaign Council, filed petitions to law enforcement agencies including the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC); Code of Conduct Bureau and Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), asking them to arrest Atiku.
Following this, the CCB invited Keyamo to adopt his petition and help it to secure the presence of Achimugu as it was set to commence an investigation into the matter.
But Atiku’s lawyer, in a letter addressed to the Chairman of the CCB (Prof. Isah Mohammed) and dated April 7, 2023, said Keyamo acted in contravention of the law by honouring the invitation of the CCB on this same matter that is still pending before a competent court for determination.
The letter reads in part: “You will therefore appreciate our surprise to read in the media that Mr. Keyamo has reportedly responded to the invitation of your esteemed Bureau purportedly to shed more light on his complaints to the Bureau, which far preceded and formed the very basis of his pending suit, as aforesaid.
“Our reasons are obvious: it is highly inappropriate for a party to a suit to take any extra-judicial steps, or to embark on any course of action that is either tantamount to, or calculated to undermine the authority and integrity of the court, which is dominus litis over the proceedings. Such behavior is as condemnable as it is unacceptable. It is strongly frowned upon, by courts of law, as it has the potential of over-reaching the court, the other party (our client) and foisting or the court, a fait accompli. In fact, it smacks of contempt of court, albeit ex facie curiae.
“To that extent, the Supreme Court has severally deprecated and condemned such actions in no certain terms. A few of such instances will suffice.”
Ozekhome noted that in “OJUKWU v. MILITARY GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE (1986) NGSC 8, the Apex Court held as follows: ‘Once a dispute has arisen between a person and the government or authority and the dispute has been brought before the court, thereby invoking the judicial powers of the State, it is the duty of the government to allow the law to take its course or allow the legal and judicial process run its full course . . . The courts expect the utmost respect of the law from the government itself which rules by the law . . . In the area where the rule of the law operates, the rule of self-help by force is abandoned.’”
Citing another case, Ozekhome said, “REGISTERED TRUSTEES APOSTOLIC CHURCH V. OLOWOLENI (1990) 4 NWLR Pt. 158 Pg. 514 at 537, where the Supreme Court, per Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC, held thus: ‘Once parties have turned their dispute over to the courts for determination, the right to resort to self-help ends. So it is not permissible for one of the parties to take any step during the pendency of the suit which may have the effect of fostering upon a Court a situation of complete helplessness or which may give the impression that the Court is being used as a mere subterfuge to tie the hands of one party while the party helps himself extra judicially. Both parties are to await the result of the litigation and the appropriate order of the court before acting further.’”
Based on the above assertions, the lawyer urged CCB to stop its intervention in the matter to allow proper adjudication of the court.
“For the foregoing reasons, we urge the Bureau to refrain from interfering in the subject matter of Mr. Keyamo’s petition since he has himself voluntarily submitted it to a competent court of law for adjudication.
“Accordingly, kindly advise and direct him to pursue his pending litigation against our client to its logical conclusion. We assure you we are eagerly waiting for him there.
“Where however you persist in your enterprise of investigating this subjudice matter currently pending before a court of competent jurisdiction, we shall be left with no alternative than to activate the judicial process against your good self. Please, accept the assurances of our professional esteem and regards,” the letter concluded.