An Abuja based lawyer, Alexander Oketa, has dragged the Chairman, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, Mr. Ola Olukoyede, before a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory over a land ownership tussle between Jona Brothers Construction Limited and one Chief Michael Adeojo (Chairman of Elizade Motors).
Oketa filed the suit on behalf of his clients, Jona Brothers. The suit has the Inspector-General of Police, IGP Kayode Egbetokun, the Attorney-General of the Federation, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, and some EFCC officials as respondents.
He is asking the court to order the respondents to pay the plaintiffs the sum of N500 million as general damages.
Oketa had petitioned the EFCC chairman last week, urging him to call his personnel who were allegedly involved in land grabbing in Abuja to order.
The piece of land situated at Plot 680-689, Cadastral Zone, B06 Mabushi, Abuja, has been a subject of dispute, with several court judgements and a Police Investigation Report giving the authentic ownership of the said land to Jona Brothers, while the EFCC, in a twist, allegedly dabbled into it thereafter and insisted the land belongs to Adeojo.
Subsequently, EFCC operatives stormed the premises last week Thursday, sealing off the property while threatening to arrest anyone who goes close to it; relying on an ex-perte order of interim forfeiture.
In a Fundamental Rights Enforcement suit filed at the High Court of the FCT on behalf of Jona Brothers Construction Limited, Bullion Properties Limited, Oyenbueke Uche Vincent and John Oyih, Oketa is seeking an order directing the EFCC to immediately unseal the property and allow his clients unrestrained access to it.
The suit is also seeking an order to declare the invasion and threats to arrest and detain the owners of the land by the EFCC as “ultra vires; arbitrary; prejudicial; without precedent; unprocedural; unconstitutional; subversion of the rule of law and due administration of justice; subversion of the independence, authority and integrity of the judiciary; and a violation of the Applicants fundamental rights to personal liberty, fair hearing, freedom to own movable and immovable property guaranteed under sections 35, 36, 43 & 44 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)”.
“The facts of this suit as it relates to the Applicants is a simple land dispute and attempts by the EFCC officials to retake possession of the land and hand same to the Applicants’ defeated opponent, Chief Michael Adeojo (Owner of Elizade Motors), whom the EFCC gave verdict as the owner of the land, contrary to the verdicts of three (3) judgements and rulings of three (3) Justices of the FCT High Court Abuja, having exclusive jurisdiction over land matters,” Oketa posited.
He gave the breakdown of the judgements and rulings of the courts to include, “Judgement of His Lordship, Justice Ibrahim Mohammed, in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/42/2023, prohibiting the EFCC and entity acting on its behalf, from Plot 680-689.
“Judgement of Hon. Justice S.U. Bature, Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/05/2020, declaring the Applicants Owners of the land. Ruling of Hon. Justice Binta Mohamed, in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/806/2022, dismissing Chief Michael Adeojo’s quest to set aside the judgement; and Oder of Hon. Justice Olajuwon of the Federal High Court, Abuja, in Suit No. FCT/ABJ/CS/779/2023, Ordering the EFCC to maintain status quo.”
The lawyer contended that “the Respondents took laws into their hands and recklessly carried out the aforementioned illegal acts, without the approval of the enforcement unit of the Federal High Court, Abuja, where they covertly obtained the exparte Order.
“The Respondents violated the sanctity of the Courts and the Applicants’ rights to liberty, fair hearing, acquire and own properties, as enshrined in the Sections 35, 43, and 44 of the 1999 Constitution and Articles 6 and 14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Right, hence this suit”.
Oketa is also seeking an order directing the 8th Respondent (the IGP), to accord the Applicants all necessary protection and security needed to for their peaceful possession of the said property.
Meanwhile, no date has been fixed for hearing of the suit.