The Appeal Court sitting in Ado Ekiti on Thursday froze the bank accounts of Ekiti State Governor, Ayodele Fayose.
The three-man panel led by Justice Joseph Ikyegh set aside the judgment of Justice Taiwo O. Taiwo of the Federal High Court, Ado Ekiti, who granted an order de-freezing the accounts earlier frozen by Justice M. Idris of the Federal High Court, Lagos.
Justice Boloukoromo Ugo in the lead judgment held that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) could freeze the accounts in order to preserve the money, which is the source of investigation.
Justice Idris had granted an ex parte order on June 24, 2017, freezing Fayose’s accounts with the bank.
Dissatisfied, the governor approached another Federal High Court, accusing the EFCC of suppressing the facts that Fayose it had placed under investigations was a governor.
The EFCC went to the Court of Appeal to challenge the judgment and also filed a motion for stay of execution of the judgment.
The Appeal Court cited the judgment in Fawehinmi against the Social Democratic Party, which says in Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution that the sitting governor could be investigated, only that he could not be prosecuted or invited for interrogation.
The Appeal Court also held that the fact that the EFCC did not attach the particulars of the governor and his names to the frozen accounts was not a suppression of fact.
Justice Ugo said, “In any event, this discourse of who bears the burden of proof of concealment of material facts is largely academic here given the fact that the issue does not by any means go to the jurisdiction of Idris J. to grant the order. It is rather at best one of irregularity which does not nullify his order nor entitle Taiwo J. to sit on and set it aside. The proper place for first respondent to agitate that issue, if he was truly aggrieved and there was substance in it, was to approach Idris J. himself and not Taiwo J. to discharge his order because material facts were not disclosed to Idris J.
“Investigation and preservation of public funds amounting to billions of naira allegedly corruptly acquired by the first respondent and deposited with second respondent by the first respondent pending the prosecution of first respondent when he leaves office is exactly what appellant claimed it did by approaching and securing from Idris J. the interim freezing/attachment order.
“I do not also see conflict between section 308 or section 44 of the constitution and section 34 of the EFCC Act 2004 empowering the appellant to apply for an interim order of attachment of suspected stolen public funds as Taiwo J. suggested in his judgment.
“I can only add that the preservation order envisaged by Section 34 of EFCC Act as well as the order made by Idris J. were only in the interim and did not amount to expropriation of the funds frozen as conflict with section 44 of the constitution. The order was only preservative for the appellant to take possession and preserve the allegedly unlawfully acquired funds to be used for possible prosecution later.
“In the final analysis, I find the appeal meritorious and having resolve all three issues agitated in the appellant’s favour
“That the appeal is meritorious and having resolved all three issues agitated in the appeal in appellant’s favour, it is hereby ordered that the appeal is hereby allowed.
“That the judgment delivered by Taiwo J. Of the Federal High Court, Ekiti Judicial Division, on December 13, 2016 granting the claims of the first respondent (Fayose) in suit no: FHC/AD/CS/27/2016 is hereby set aside.”
