Immediate past chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, Ibrahim Lamorde has approached the Federal High Court in Abuja seeking injunctions to stop his possible arrest following the planned probe of his activities while in office.
Lamorde was replaced as boss of the anti-graft agency last week by President Muhammadu Buhari just as the Senate was probing into an alleged missing N2.05trillion said to be largely monies recovered from suspects. He allegedly left the shores of Nigeria through the South-west border of the country en route London weekend.
Five questions to determine
In the originating summons dated November 19, 2015 brought under Order 3, Rules 6 and 7 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009 and inherent jurisdiction of the court listing the Senate, its committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions, the Inspector-General of Police and the Director General of the Department of State Services, DSS, as 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants by his lawyer, Festus Keyamo yesterday, Lamorde wants the court to determine the following questions:
. whether, in view of the provisions of Sections 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), the 1st and 2nd defendants, their officers, members, agents or privies can “invite” the plaintiff to appear before them as a person whose conduct of affairs is being investigated by them in relation to issues concerning office(s) he has already vacated;
. whether, in view of the provisions of Sections 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), the 1st and 2nd defendants, their officers, members, agents or privies can request the plaintiff to appear before them by merely writing an invitation letter to him and not issuing a summons;
. whether, in view of the provisions of Sections 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), the 1st and 2nd defendants, their officers, members, agents or privies can issue a warrant against the plaintiff without first serving him a summons;
. whether, in view of the provisions of Sections 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), the 3rd and 4th defendants, their officers, members, agents or privies can execute any warrant issued by the 1st and 2nd defendants against the plaintiff and which was issued without first issuing a summons to the plaintiff and
. whether, by virtue of Section 36(1) of the provisions of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) it is not unconstitutional for the 2nd defendant to prevent counsel to the plaintiff from appearing on the plaintiff’s behalf only for the purpose of raising objection to procedural defects in the invitation to the plaintiff to appear before the 2nd defendant.
The former EFCC chairman is thus seeking the following declarations from the court:
. A declaration that in view of the provisions of Sections 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), the 1st and 2nd Defendants, their officers, members, agents or privies cannot “invite” the Plaintiff to appear before them as a person whose conduct of affairs is being investigated by them in relation to issues concerning office(s) he has already vacated.
. A declaration that in view of the provisions of sections 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), the 1st and 2nd Defendants, their officers, members, agents or privies cannot request the Plaintiff to appear before them by merely writing an invitation letter to him and not issuing a Summons;
. A declaration that in view of the provisions of sections 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), the 1st and 2nd Defendants, their officers, members, agents or privies cannot issue a Warrant against the Plaintiff without first serving him a Summons;
. A declaration that in view of the provisions of Sections 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), the 3rd and 4th Defendants, their officers, members, agents or privies cannot execute any Warrant issued by the 1st and 2nd Defendants against the Plaintiff and which was issued without first issuing a Summons to the Plaintiff;
. A declaration that by virtue of Section 36(1) of the provisions of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) it is unconstitutional for the 2nd Defendant to prevent counsel to the plaintiff from appearing on the Plaintiff’s behalf only for the purpose of raising objection to procedural defects in the invitation to the Plaintiff to appear before the 2nd Defendant and
He also wants an order of injunction against the 3rd and 4th Defendants restraining them from executing any warrant issued by the 1st and 2nd Defendants against the Plaintiff and which was issued without first issuing a Summons to the Plaintiff.
Other reliefs sought by Lamorde include:
. An Order setting aside all letters of invitation issued against the Plaintiff by the 1st and 2nd Defendants to appear before them as a person being investigated by them in relation to issues concerning his stewardship of office(s) he has already vacated;
. An Order of injunction against the 1st and 2nd Defendants restraining them from issuing any Warrant for the arrest of the Plaintiff without first issuing a Summons to the Plaintiff and such further or other Orders as the Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.

Lamorde on medicare abroad
In the affidavit in support of his motion deposed to by a litigation secretary in the Law Firm of Festus Keyamo Chambers, his lawyer stated that “on the 9th of November, 2015, the Plaintiff was relieved of his duties as the Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and was directed by the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to proceed on a 3-month terminal leave;” adding that “pursuant to the foregoing, the Plaintiff handed over all obligations, responsibilities and duties pertaining to his office to Ibrahim Mustapha Magu who was appointed Acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and with the President’s approval, the Plaintiff travelled out of the country for his medical treatment.”


Ad:See How you can turn $500 into $10,000 Click HERE For Details.
SHARE