Court, Agunloye
Advertisement

A Federal Capital Territory High Court on Monday, April 15, 2024, dismissed an application by a former Minister of Power and Steel, Olu Agunloye, inviting some legal luminaries to hear his case on alleged infractions in the Mambilla Hydroelectric plant.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) charged Agunloye, who served as a minister in the administration of former President Olusegun Obasanjo, before Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie.

On March 21, the former minister through his counsel, Adeola Adedipe (SAN), moved a motion seeking the leave of the court to allow some lawyers to participate in the hearing of his preliminary objection against EFCC.

He noted that contrary to the constitutional provision, the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) did not give EFCC the fiat to investigate and institute proceedings in the case against him.

Adedipe therefore urged the court to grant the application, saying the prosecution was aware that the court had the power to grant the same, which was why it did not want the court to grant it.

$6bn fraud: Ex-minister Agunloye released from Kuje prison

Responding, the prosecution counsel, Abba Mohammed, said the Supreme Court had decided in FRN vs Osahor and others that the power of the AGF under Section 174 of the Constitution is not exclusive to him.

According to him, this implied that other authorities could initiate criminal proceedings in court, adding that in the instance case, the AGF did not complain that EFCC usurped his power.

The judge subsequently adjourned ruling till today (Monday, April 15)

Ruling on the motion on Monday, Justice Onwuegbuzie held that the matter is not such that amicus curiae (friends of the court) should be invited.

The judge said: “The amicus curiae are not parties to the case and cannot be invited. Consequently, the application is dismissed.

“The court is not confused or in doubt to warrant the intervention of amici curiae”

“An amicus is not supposed to be invited by parties in the suit but it is the responsibility of the court to do so if desirous of it.”

He, therefore, adjourned until April 22 to hear the defendant’s preliminary objection.

The Star

Advertisement

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here