The Federal High Court, Ado-Ekiti has ordered the Economic and
Financial Crimes Commission and the Zenith Bank plc to show cause why
an Order Exparte to defreeze Governor Ayodele Fayose’s accounts, filed
yesterday to the court by the governor’s legal team, should not be
The judge gave Monday July 4 for the anti-graft agency and Zenith bank
Plc to appear in court with the said evidence.
Mr Mike Ozekhome (SAN), had through an exparte order deposed to on the
24th of June, 2016 by Bimpe Olatemiju sought a mandatory order
de-freezing the accounts belonging and operated by him pending the
determination of his interlocutory application.
Joined in the suit are the EFCC (1st defendant) and Zenith bank (2nd
defendant). The order was supported by 18-paragraph affidavit , a lone
Exhibit, which was a letter issued to Governor Fayose by Zenith bank
confirming that the EFCC actually placed a restriction order on the
accounts and a written address .
He also sought the leave of the court for the service of the
originating summons on the defendants in their various addresses
outside the jurisdiction of the court as contained on the order
papers, supported by 17-paragraph affidavit.
Ozekhome said the order was brought pursuant to order 26 rule 8(1) of
the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rule 2009 and Section 44(1) of
the 1999 constitution which gives the court the discretionary powers
to adjudicate on such matter.
Citing the case of Abdulaziz Nyako Vs EFCC to buttress his position
that the anti-graft agency has no power to freeze Fayose’s account
without valid court order, Ozekhome added the action was a flagrant
negation of the Section 308 of the constitution, which conferred
absolute immunity on the government against civil and criminal
He said it was appalling that the EFCC could play ostrich to these
valid constitutional requirements and took cognizance of the African
Charters on Human and People’s Rights before taking the punitive stand
against Fayose, adding that these infractions had rendered the action
unconstitutional, wrongful , null and void .
Delivering his ruling, Justice Taiwo Taiwo, said that he quite
understood that the applicant (Fayose) enjoys immunity and that the
court can adjudicate on this matter as canvassed by the counsel to the
plaintiff, but he pointed out that the relief he basically sought was
a mandatory order of the court.