A Federal High Court in Abuja has aapplied the brakes on the move by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to further probe Senate President Bukola Saraki.
Those also stopped from further probing Saraki are the Inspector-General of Police (IGP), Department of State Services (DSS), the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission (ICPC) and the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).
Justice Taiwo gave the verdict on Tuesday following two ex-parte motions filed by Saraki with two fundamental rights enforcement applications, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/507/2019 and FHC/ABJ/CS/508/2019.
The orders will be in place pending the hearing and conclusion of the two fundamental rights suits by Saraki.
Said Justice Taiwo: “There is no doubt that the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules 2009 is a special proceeding with its stated rules and procedure.
“By the provision of Order 4(3) of the Fundamental Rights-Civil Procedure Rules, 2009, the court may, if satisfied that hardship may be caused to the applicant before the service of an application where liberty or life of the applicant is involved, hear the application ex parte upon such interim reliefs as the justice of the application may demand.
“There is no doubt that, in making the interim reliefs or orders, the court is guided, even in the exercise of its discretion judicially and judiciously applied by the law and statues.
“Here comes in the rules and of course, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
“One of the considerations, which is paramount, is the hardship the applicant may go through, between the service of the processes and the hearing of the main motion, amongst others.
“I have gone through the affidavit in support of the ex parte application particularly paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35.
“I also duly considered the averments in the affidavit of urgency and all the exhibits attached.
“I am of the view, after due consideration of the aforesaid averments, that this court ought to make the order being sought by the applicant pending the hearing and determination of the originating motion on notice.
“To do otherwise and not to restrain the respondents by asking them not to stay actions will result in the court being faced with a fait accompli.
“I further come to my conclusion that the applicant is entitled to this order in view of the trite law that once the court is seized of a matter, parties are bound not to do anything that will make nugatory any order of the court by staying action.
“This is akin to ordering that parties maintain the status quo. However, the court must make a positive order.
Saraki’s lawyer, Sunday Onubi, told the court that the respondents would cause irreparable damages to the applicant’s rights if not restrained before the substantive suits were heard.
Onubi prayed the court that, “for an order directing the respondents, by themselves, their servants, agents, privies or officers to stay all actions in connection with the subject matter of this suit, pending the hearing and determination of the originating motion on notice.”