News

El-Rufai Loses ₦120m Suit Against DSS, EFCC, ICPC As Court Orders Him To Pay ₦800,000 Damages

Elrufai In Court

JUSTICE Sylvanus Oriji of the Federal Capital Territory High Court has dismissed a ₦120 million fundamental rights suit instituted by former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, against the Department of State Services (DSS) and three others.

News Point Nigeria reports that in a judgment, Justice Oriji dismissed the suit for lacking merit and substance as constituted by the plaintiff.

Justice Oriji also awarded ₦200,000 in costs to each of the respondents, to be paid by the former governor, bringing the total costs to ₦800,000 for the four respondents.

The court held that the letters of invitation issued by the two federal government agencies directing El-Rufai to appear for investigation over allegations against him met constitutional requirements and did not in any way constitute an infringement of his fundamental rights.

Specifically, Justice Oriji said that both the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) did not violate the applicant’s rights by inviting him to shed light on issues raised against him.

On whether the DSS, the third respondent, violated the applicant’s rights by attempting to arrest him at the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport, Abuja, the court upheld the DSS’s submission that it had a statutory mandate to maintain watchlist action and arrest persons of interest.

The court further held that El-Rufai could not use the court to stop the agencies from performing their duties.

Justice Oriji dismissed El-Rufai’s argument that there was no warrant for his attempted arrest, ruling that the DSS had inherent powers of the police pursuant to the SSS instrument and the NSA Act.

On whether the seizure of the applicant’s passport by the DSS violated his rights, the court held that it was satisfied that the seizure was lawful and carried out pursuant to the powers of the DSS.

The court further held that the applicant had failed to adduce evidence showing that the seizure was continuous, permanent and unlawful.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published.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