Businessman urges court to reverse ruling on EFCC seizure

Sitting as a vacation judge, Justice Yusuf Halilu dismissed Olakehinde’s rights’ violation suit instituted against the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for illegaly seizing 18 cars, on display for sale, in Abuja. The anti-graft commission alleged that the cars were suspected to have been bought with proceeds of crime. But the car dealer claimed the seizure was carried out without lawful authorisation. In his six-ground notice of appeal filed on September 12 by his counsel, Aliyu Umar (SAN), the businessman is seeking a reversal of the ruling. The dealer contended that the trial erroneously substituted his complaint of rights’ violation to own property to that of rights’ violation to dignity of person. “The learned judge erred in law when he substituted the appellant’s cause of action from a complaint of breach of fundamental human rights to own personal property to that of a case of applicant’s right to human dignity.” In the notice, the businessman said the judge failed to make a pronouncement on the legality or otherwise of the seizure of his cars by the EFCC without due process. He argued that he was never invited by the EFCC to make him a subject of any criminal investigation warranting the seizure of his cars. Besides, the businessman noted that since “no credible evidence was placed before him, it shows that the cars belonged to Mr. Olalekan Olakehinde based on the original bill of lading and not to Liman Kantigi as asserted by the EFCC in its counter affidavit.” According to the notice of appeal, a reversal of the ruling is necessary because “the conclusions of a verdict of dismissal of his case reached by the judge were not based on evidence placed before him.” Saying the ruling breached his rights to fair hearing under the 1999 Constitution, the plaintiff urged the court to invoke its powers under Section 15 of its Act in determining the issues in his appeal and order the release of his cars. One of his attorneys, Solomon Tunyan (esq), confirmed the filing of the notice of appeal, adding that the EFCC was served with a copy.]]>