A KANO State High Court has issued an ex-parte order restraining the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) from interfering in the affairs of the Kano State Public Complaints and Anti-Corruption Commission (PCACC).
This newspaper reports that the duo of EFCC and CCB had in separate letters to the PCACC inform of a pending investigation into the affairs of the Kano anti-graft agency, with the former requesting for the PCACC’s Director of Finance and Accounts to avail herself with some documents on Monday for interview while the CCB only requested for some documents to aid its investigation.
But the Kano state government, through its Attorney General filed a suit before the state high court to ask among others for the declaration that “any act carried out by the Commission (PCACC) and its staff in the course of discharging their functions under the supervision of or on behalf of the Attorney-General being the head and supervisor cannot be subiected to investigation without recourse to him.”
It also asked for a declaration “that the scope of the powers of the EFCC are not open-ended and indefinable and does not include the powers to investigate alleged infractions committed at state levels where there are relevant penal provision.”
While granting the exparte motion that accompanied the originating summons, the presiding judge, Justice Farouk Lawan Adamu held that upon reading the motion ex-parte together with the accompanying affidavit sworn to by Khalifa Auwal Hashim on August 28, “an order by way interim injunction restraining the Defendants/Respondents from meddling or delving into the affairs or taking any step on, related to or in connection with the functions, duties and affairs of the Plaintiffs/Applicants”.
The defendants/respondents in the suit are EFCC, CCB and ICPC while the Kano State Attorney General, the PCACC and Barrister Muhuyi Magaji Rimingado, the Chairman of PCACC were listed as plaintiffs/applicants.
The judge also ordered for accelerating hearing of the matter by abridging time within which the defendants may file and serve their respective court processes in the matter.
He thereafter adjourned the matter to September 25 for hearing of the originating motion.
