JUSTICE John Tsoho of the Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday struck out the N2 billion fundamental human rights enforcement suit brought by the wife of a former President, Dame Patience Jonathan against the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
Justice Tsoho, In the judgement he delivered yesterday, held that the former first lady could not sustain her claims that her fundamental human rights have been violated by the anti-graft agency.
The court also held that Patience Jonathan’s case was largely weakened by the claim of the EFCC that investigation of the alleged crime against the former first lady is ongoing and in progress.
The anti-graft agency had, in its deposition that bogus sums of money, suspected to be proceeds of crime were lodged in the sealed bank accounts, which the former first lady claimed belongs to her
According to Justice Tsoho, the case of the applicant (Jonathan’s wife) is not sustained, adding that the law does not limit the period of investigation of crime.
On the complaint by the former first lady that EFCC violated her rights to private and family life, the court held that there was no evidence to show that the respondent (EFCC) raided her houses.
“No verifiable evidence was placed before the court to prove that she is being hunted because of her views expressed during the 2015 general elections campaign’, the Judge stated.
On the applicant’s alleged violation of rights to a fair hearing, the court held that her rights have not been violated in any way, as the court had granted EFCC an interlocutory order, sealing the properties on a reasonable ground of suspicion that the properties were obtained by proceeds of crime.
Justice Tsoho also justified the preservative order granted the anti-graft agency by the court and added that it does not amount to a violation of the applicant’s right.
He also dismissed the applicant’s claims that her right to human dignity was violated by media publications by EFCC, on the ground that most of the exhibits annexed by the applicant were online publications.
“Having made out this, I hold that the applicant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought. Consequently, the applicant’s suit is hereby struck out”, Justice Tsoho held.
Patience Jonathan had, in her suit filed by her counsel, Ifedayo Adedipe (SAN), prayed the court to order EFCC to pay her N2 billion as general damages/compensation jointly and severally for the violation of her fundamental rights.
She wanted the court to declare that her incessant harassment by the EFCC through negative media publications, denigrating and degrading her person as corrupt because it violated her rights under Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria.
The former first lady also prayed for a declaration that the indiscriminate freezing of her bank accounts and those of her relatives by EFCC, under the guise of investigation of proceeds of crime, without any invitation or interrogation is a violation of her rights to own property and to fair hearing guaranteed under Sections 44 and 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution.
She also prayed for, “A declaration that the invasion, breaking into and ransacking of the applicant’s family property by the agents of the respondent in the absence of the applicant or any member of her family, while purporting to be executing a search warrant is a violation of the applicant’s fundamental human rights to private and family life guaranteed under the provisions of Section 37 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
“A declaration that the incessant harassment of the applicant by the respondent on the ground of her political views expressed by reason of her being a member of the opposition party in Nigeria, is a violation of the applicant’s fundamental human right to freedom from discrimination, guaranteed under Section 42 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
“An order of court restraining the respondent, whether, by itself, its agents, privies or any person acting on its behalf from further violating the applicant’s fundamental rights adumbrated above”.
and then