The Federal High Court on Thursday in Abuja dismissed an application
demanding information on the statement of account relating to the
spending of the 12.4 billion dollars oil windfall between 1988 to 1994.
Delivering ruling on objections raised against the application,
Justice Gabriel Kolawole held that the court lacked the jurisdiction to
hear the matter.
Kolawole further held that the applicants did not have the requisite ``locus standi’’ to institute the action.
The Registered Trustees of Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability
Project (SERAP), Access to Justice and Human and Environmental
Development Agenda (HEDA) filed the application.
The Women Advocates Research and Documentation Centre (WARDC),
Committee for the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR) and Partnership for
Justice were de-listed as joint applicants due to wrong representation.
The Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) were the respondents.
The Judge held that the applicants could not establish the allegation
of a ``dedicated account’’ within the CBN where the money was
domiciled.
Kolawole further said the action was ``status barred’’ as applicant
failed to approach the court within 12 months allowed by law in 2005
after the release of the late Chief Pius Okadigbo Report on the
misappropriation of the windfall.
He said that the applicant had failed to produce a certified copy of
the Okadigbo Report, adding that ``the issues raised remained doubtful
in the circumstance’’.
According to the Judge, the applicants did not give the claims the
required legal perimeter to push the court to grant the reliefs adding
that ``the claims are non-justiceable’’.
``More worrisome is the fact the Fundamental Rights Enforcement
Procedure Rules 2009 relied on by the applicant is in conflict with
Section 46 (1) (3) of the 1999 Constitution.
``The Chief Justice of Nigeria has assumed legislative powers in the
amendment of the rules to enlarge the justiceable rights of the
applicants not originally captured in the Constitution.
``This is, however, not done to discredit the justiceable rights as
enshrined in the African Charter on Fundamental Human Rights, which the
applicants may have relied on heavily.
``All the equitable relives sought in the application are hereby
dismissed, unless the applicants are able to establish the existence of a
dedicate account which the money was kept, I am afraid the other
auxiliary relives shall not be granted,’’ he said.
The applicants had in 2010 brought the motion on notice pursuant to
Order 1 Rule 2 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules
2009 as reserved by Section 315 of the 1999 Constitution.
They have also relied on Order 2 Rules 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the
Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 and the inherent
jurisdiction of the court.
The applicants, therefore, sought an order compelling the respondents
to publish detailed statement of the account relating to the spending
of the $12.4 billion oil windfall between 1988 and 1994.
The applicant also sought for an order directing the respondents to
diligently and effectively bring to justice anyone suspected of
corruption and mismanagement of the money.
They further sought for an order directing the respondents to return
to the Federal account any money which was the subject matter of
corruption.
The applicant sought for an order directing the respondents to
provide adequate reparation, which may take the form of restitution,
compensation, satisfaction or guarantee of non-repetition to millions of
Nigerians that had been denied as the result of the misuse of the
money.
The applicant had among other declarations, prayed the court to rule
that the refusal of the respondents to release the detailed statement of
account relating to the windfall was illegal and unlawful.
The applicant argued that they were entitled to information as
guaranteed by Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and People’s
Rights.
Mr Sola Egbeyinka, who held the brief of Mr Femi Falana, counsel to
the applicants told newsmen after the proceedings that the ruling would
be challenged.
No comments:
Post a Comment