A BAUCHI State High Court has dismissed an application seeking a perpetual injunction to restrain the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) from investigating financial activities relating to security votes in the Office of the Secretary to the Bauchi State Government (SSG).
News Point Nigeria reports that in suit number BA/834M/2024, nine applicants under the umbrella of “Concerned Indigenes of Bauchi State” argued that they had lost confidence in the ICPC, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), and the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU).
They alleged that the agencies had failed to act on several petitions regarding alleged financial infractions involving the SSG’s office, which they described as a “financial drainpipe” against the interest of Bauchi citizens.
The applicants asked the court to compel the three anti-graft bodies to withdraw from the matter and transfer it to the Nigeria Police for investigation.
Counsel to the applicants, Mr. M.J. Jaldi, argued that some financial transactions from the SSG’s office including large cash payments not routed through financial institutions violated provisions of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act and warranted police investigation.
However, ICPC spokesperson and Director of Public Enlightenment, Demola Bakare, said in a statement on Wednesday that the Commission filed a counter-affidavit opposing all the reliefs sought.
ICPC and EFCC maintained that the applicants were attempting to use the court to interfere with their statutory mandate. They further noted that the applicants had not formally submitted any petitions against the respondents to justify the suit.
The agencies also argued that they were not the only anti-corruption bodies in the country and that nothing stopped the applicants from approaching other law enforcement agencies, including the police, for investigations.
Delivering judgment, Justice F.U. Sarki held that the investigative powers of the ICPC, EFCC, and NFIU do not exclude the police, whose powers to investigate and prosecute are even “wider and general.”
“It is not within the powers of this court to restrain the 1st to 3rd respondents from carrying out their statutory functions. The application is therefore refused,” the judge ruled.
