500 Pro-Yahaya Bello’s Lawyers Storm Supreme Court, Protest Against EFCC
No fewer than 500 legal practitioners took to the Supreme Court on Monday to protest what they described as the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) “illegal” approach against former Kogi Governor, Yahaya Bello.
In a statement issued by its co-convener, S.K Alewu, the group lamented the EFCC’s attempt to arrest the former governor even when it have been served a valid court order that restrains it from doing so.
Alewu said not only has Bello’s fundamental rights been breached, the judiciary has also become willing tools in the hands of enemies of our rule of law.
The lawyers urged the Judicial Council of Nigeria and President Bola Tinubu to call the EFCC to order to stop further abuse and disobedience of court orders.
He said: “It has become pertinent again that we address well-meaning Nigerians on the current attacks on the Judiciary by the very institutions created by law to enforce and guarantee the sanctity of our judicial processes.
“As young lawyers, we envisage a judiciary where justice is not only done but also seen to be manifestly done. It is in our patriotic quest to always pursue ventures that guarantee an independent judiciary that dispenses justice without fear nor Favour that we formed this civil society of lawyers.
“We are therefore perturbed that desperate politicians and corrupt elements in our polity are working very assiduously to bring the judiciary that sacrificed its all to guard its jurisdiction jealously under the military regime to public odium and opprobrium.
“It is more worrisome that even the very institutions that are created by law to enforce our laws have become willing tools in the hands of enemies of our rule of law and the judiciary to harangue our judges and bring the justice system to public ridicule.
“The current case between the EFCC and Gov. Yahaya is the most heinous of such instances. It is sickening that the commission will move to lay siege and even attempt to arrest the former governor of Kogi state despite being served a valid court order that restrains them from doing so and without vacating the said order.
“The events of the past few days is capable of eroding the many gains and national acclaim the commission recorded and enjoys from majority of Nigerians who sees the establishment of the commission as the greatest intervention to the endemic corruption that has rocked our public service and government institutions since the return of Nigeria to democracy in 1999.
“The only succour is that the current president of Nigeria, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is a leader who gave his all to sustain our democracy. The President, at a point, became a victim of political with-hunt.
“We have submitted petitions to the Nigerian Judicial Council and Mr. President asking that they use their good offices to call the EFCC to order and stop any form abuse and disobedience of court orders.”
Meanwhile the EFCC has denied disobeying court order on attempt to arrest Yahaya Bello..
In a press statement signed by the EFCC’s Acting Director, Public Affairs, Mr. Wilson Uwujaren, the Commission pointed out that though Bello sought refuge in a fundamental rights enforcement action through an order granted by Justice Isa Jamil Abdulallahi of the Kogi State High Court, the order did not vitiate or nullify an order made by the Federal High Court for the arrest of the former governor for the purpose of his arraignment.
“The enrolled Order of the Kogi State High Court only granted an order to enforce Bello’s right to personal liberty and freedom of movement, it didn’t preclude the Federal High Court ‘to make any Order as it may deem just in the determination of the rights of the Applicant and the Respondent as may be submitted to her for consideration and determination”, he said.
He further stressed that, “The Order made by the Federal High Court for the arrest of Mr. Yahaya Bello for the purpose of his arraignment is not in conflict with the Order of the Kogi State High Court. The case before the Federal High Court is a criminal charge which is different from the fundamental rights enforcement action that is the subject of an appeal.”