Finally, President Buhari Ddecides On EFCC Boss, Ibrahim Magus’s Sack, Releases A Shocking Statement
[irp]
President Muhammadu Buhari, and the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, have asked the Federal High Court in Abuja, to strike out all suits seeking the removal of the Acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, Ibrahim Magu, from office.
“This honourable court cannot invoke its judicial powers under Section 6(6)(b) (of the Constitution) to hear and determine this case”, the President and the AGF stated in a preliminary objection challenging the competence of a suit seeking Magu’s removal from office.
There are said to be pending 17 suits filed in support and against Magu’s appointment, following the refusal of the Senate to confirm the appointment of Magu as the substantive EFCC Chairman, on two different occasions.
It was learnt that the President and the AGF took the same position in all of the suits seeking Magu’s removal from office.
[irp]
In their response, Buhari and the AGF contended that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the suit, because among other issues, the plaintiffs lacked the locus standi (legal right) to file the suit.
The preliminary objection read in apart: “The plaintiffs claim to be concerned Nigerian citizens and Legal Practitioners, thus imparted upon themselves the right to institute this suit, notwithstanding the fact that the National Assembly (particularly the Senate) is a legal person capable of suing and being sued. The Plaintiffs did not depose to the fact that they were instructed by the Senate or the Senate President to institute this suit.
“The plaintiffs are seeking inter alia an order restraining the 4th defendant from re-nominating or representing the name of the 1st defendant (Magu) to the Senate for appointment as the Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.”
[irp]
The two defendants maintained that the suit was wrongly instituted by the two plaintiffs and ought to be struck out.
They added: “My lord, we humbly submit that a perusal of all the processes in the court’s file will reveal that the plaintiffs instituted the action wrongly, as they do not possess the locus standi to institute same.
“The plaintiffs have also failed to follow the due process of law in filing this suit, and have not brought this action by way of Judicial Review, contrary to Order 34 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules.
“This honourable court has therefore, been deprived of the jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit.
[irp]
“And if it is, your lordship has the power to, among other things, strike out this matter in its entirety. We urge your lordship to strike out this matter for want of jurisdiction.”
Prayers sought in the suit included: “A declaration that by the combined effect of the provisions of section 2(3) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act, 2004 and Order 131 of the Rules of the 5th and 6th defendants, the 4th defendant cannot validly reappoint/re-present the name of the 15‘Defendant to the 5th defendant for confirmation as the Chairman of the 2nd defendant, having being previously rejected twice by the 5th and 6th defendants.
“A declaration that by re-nominating, representing the name of the 1st defendant to the 5th and 6th defendants for confirmation as the Chairman of the 2nd defendant, having been previously rejected twice by the 5th and 6th defendant, the 4th defendant is foisting a candidate upon Nigerians.”
[irp]
