Ribadu: EFCC Wants to Arrest Me

Former Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, yesterday asked a Federal High Court in Abuja to restrain the commission from arresting him.
Ribadu, in an ex-parte application filed on his behalf by his counsel, Mr. Tayo Oyetibo (SAN) and Mr. Charles Musa, is also seeking an order granting him leave to enforce his fundamental rights
Specifically, Ribadu wants the court to restrain the respondents and their agents or representatives from arresting or detaining him or interfering in any manner whatsoever with his rights to personal liberty and freedom of movement as guaranteed by Sections 35(1) and 41(1) of the 1999 Constitution.
The 1st and 2nd respondents in the suit are the EFCC, Inspector-General of Police and Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice respectively.
But no sooner had Oyetibo moved the ex-parte motion in court yesterday than the following conversation ensued between him and presiding Justice Abdullahi Mustapha.
Judge: Is he not still a public servant?
Oyetibo: Yes, my lord.
Judge: Can a public servant not be summoned by his employer?
Oyetibo: He is no more working at the EFCC
Judge: Can the police not invite any citizen to appear before them?
Oyetibo: They can my lord, but they cannot compel the citizen to go there. In any case, my lord, it is not the police that is inviting him now but the EFCC.
Judge: How did he know that he will be detained if he honours the invitation?
Oyetibo: Because they detained Ibrahim Magu who honoured a similar invitation and when the applicant (Ribadu) wrote a letter explaining that he cannot come because of his course at the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS), and asking for details of the reason why he was needed at the EFCC, EFCC threatened him with arrest.
Judge: Show me the document with which he was threatened.
Oyetibo: Such threats are not put in writing
Judge: I'm not convinced that I should grant an order staying all further actions on the invitation and it is my discretion whether to grant a stay on further action or not.
Oyetibo: Yes, I agree my lord. I respectively urge you to exercise your discretion in favour of the applicant.
Ruling on the motion, Justice Mustapha consequently granted Ribadu leave to apply for the enforcement of his fundamental human rights.
Justice Mustapha, who is also the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, further directed that the application shall be by originating summons, which will be served on the respondents within eight days.
The judge, however, noted that the grant of leave shall not operate as a stay of action in respect of the 1st and 2nd respondents' letters dated October 23rd and 24th, 2008 demanding the applicant's release for interrogation.
Justice Mustapha said: "The application therefore succeeds in parts: That leave is granted to the applicant to apply for the force enforcement of his fundamental human rights. The application shall be by originating motion, to be served on the respondents within eight days.
"The grant of leave shall not operate as a stay of action in respect of the 1st and 2nd Respondents' letters dated October 23rd and 24th, 2008."
EFCC Chairman Farida Waziri had written a letter to IGP requesting the release of Ribadu for a meeting with him over certain issues which she said needed some clarifications and the need for a formal handover of office to her.
But Ribadu in a letter dated November 14, 2008, hinged his inability to oblige the request on the fact that his engagement at NIPSS would not allow him to meet with her.
On the issue of “formal hand over”, Ribadu referred her to the former Acting Executive Chairman and Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), Ibrahim Lamorde, whom he (Ribadu) said he handed over to.
He described Lamorde as the right and proper person to formally hand over to her.
He said his request became necessary on account of his failure to attend the office of the 1st respondent pursuant to its letter dated 23rd October, 2008 which was communicated to him by the 2nd respondent vide letter dated 24th October, 2008 or on account of any other similar invitation by the respondents.
Ribadu said he had not committed any criminal offence to warrant the exercise by the respondents of any coercive powers to compel his attendance of the office of the 1st respondent pursuant to its letter of 23rd October, 2008, adding that by virtue of Sections 35 (1) and 41(1) of the 1999 Constitution, he is entitled to enjoy his rights to personal liberty and freedom of movement including freedom to choose whether or not to visit the office of the 1st respondent without any compulsion.
He argued that his invitation by the 1st respondent to clarify some allegedly fundamental issues which had arisen since the his exit from the 1st respondent without notifying him of what those issues are and when he had formally handed over the operations of the 1st respondent to the acting chairman who took over from him following his exit as chairman of the 1st respondent, clearly indicates that the applicant's rights are very likely to be violated by the respondents unless he receives the protection of the court.
According to him, any forcible compulsion to attend the office of the 1st respondent when he has not committed any criminal offence will be a violation of his right to personal liberty and freedom of movement as guaranteed by Sections 35(1) and 41(1) of the 1999 constitution.
The former EFCC boss therefore sought an order of the court for a stay by the respondents of all actions and matters arising from, and connected with his invitation to the office of the 1st respondent as contained in the 1st respondent’s letter dated 23rd October, 2008, which was communicated to him by the 2nd respondent vide letter dated October 24, 2008 pending the determination of the substantive application.