• July 2, 2024

Court Dismisses Suit Challenging EFCC Chairman’s Appointment

 Court Dismisses Suit Challenging EFCC Chairman’s Appointment

By Damilare Adeleye

A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has dismissed a suit challenging the appointment of Mr. Ola Olukoyode as the Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

Justice Obiora Egwuatu delivered the judgment on Wednesday, in a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1403/2023, stating that the plaintiff, Victor Opatola, does not have the legal right to institute the suit.

Opatola had argued that Olukoyode’s appointment by President Bola Tinubu was illegal, citing Section 2(1)(a) of the EFCC Act 2024 as requirements to be appointed in the Chairman’s position.

“A declaration that pursuant to Section 2(1)(a) (ii)(iii) of the EFCC Act, the appointment of Olukoyede to the office of the EFCC chairman is illegal and void.

“A declaration that pursuant to Section 2(1)(a) (ii)(iii) of the EFCC Act, any confirmation of the 4th defendant’s appointment made by the National Assembly is void and of no legal consequence,” Opatola prayed.

However, Olukoyode’s counsel, Olumide Fusika (SAN), contended that the plaintiff had no locus standi and that Olukoyode met the requirements for the position.

The court agreed, describing the plaintiff’s case as incompetent and that of a busybody.

Justice Egwuatu held that the concept is to protect the “court from being used as a playground for professional litigants, busybodies and meddlesome interlopers and cranks who have no real stake or interest in the subject matter of the litigation.”

The judge added that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit and dismissed it for want of jurisdiction.

“Having held that the Plaintiff lacks the locus to institute this suit, this court concomitantly and or of necessity lacks the jurisdiction to entertain Plaintiff’s suit.

“The end result, as held in the case of Akande v. Jegede (supra), is that this suit must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. And it is dismissed for want of jurisdiction on the premise that the Plaintiff lacks locus to institute this suit,” the judge ruled.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *