This allegation was levelled against the embattled apex bank boss in counter-affidavits deposed before a Federal High Court by the respondents in the suit filed by Sanusi.
Sanusi is seeking a perpetual injunction to restrain the SSS and the police from arresting him.
Sanusi's lawyer, Kola Awodein, while making reference to the allegation on Monday, told the court it was an afterthought which government came up with after seizing Sanusi's passport.
Awodein said, "The seizure of the applicant's international passport by the third respondent, is a violation of his freedom of movement.
"The first to third respondents give conflicting reasons as to the complaint made against the applicant: This conflict goes to show that they acted without due process of the law.
"The allegation against the applicant as to funding of terrorism, is an afterthought by the respondents, which is not backed by facts, as there is no reasonable suspicion that the applicant committed any crime.
"The law clearly defines how such duties should be performed, and so, I invite your Lordship to hold that the applicant has a cause of action against the respondent."
The Attorney General of the Federation, represented by Dr. Fabian Ajogwu (SAN), and David Abuo and Moses Idakwo, representing the police and the SSS respectively, asked the court on Monday to dismiss Sanusi's suit for lack of merit.
The AGF, the Inspector-General of Police and the SSS are the first to third respondents respectively.
Counsel to the AGF insisted that the applicant could not by his suit, seek to restrain the respondents from performing their constitutional and statutory duties.
Ajogwu said, "My Lord, this suit is speculative, hypocritical and an attempt to shield the applicant from the machinery of the administration of justice, which the Federal Government has started.
"My Lord, we respectfully submit that the applicant is not entitled to a grant of perpetual injunction, restraining the respondents from performing their constitutional duties."
Ajogwu, while moving his preliminary objection to the suit, argued that the suit bordered on employment and as such the provisions of Section 254 (c) 1 (d) of the 1999 Constitution had vested jurisdiction to entertain such suit in the National Industrial Court.
He said, "Section 254 (c) 1 (d) of the constitution vests exclusive jurisdiction in the NIC , with respect to civil cases or matters touching on employment, labour or industrial relations.
"We respectfully urge the court to hold that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the reliefs sought by the applicant, and strike out the suit."
He also quoted Justice Niki Tobi, a retired Justice of the Supreme Court, as saying,
"A court cannot grant perpetual injunction on a mere prima facie case; the applicant's suit is basically an action to shield him from the machinery of administration of justice, which has been kick-started by the respondents."
"I, therefore, urge your Lordship, like the Biblical Pontius Pilate, to wash your hands off this case, as it is not the affairs of this honourable court ."
He maintained that the provisions of Section 6 of the National Security Agencies Act, empowered the Service to impound the international passport of a suspect, pending the conclusion of investigations.
He therefore urged the court to strike out the applicant's suit.
But Awodein said it was not true that his client was trying to prevent the security agencies from performing their duties.
He said, "It cannot be suggested that the applicant is restraining the respondents from performing their duties, but they must be restrained from doing so, without due process of the law.
"The seizure of the applicant's passport by the third respondent, is a violation of his freedom of movement.
"The first to third respondents give conflicting reasons as to the complaint made against the applicant: This conflict goes to show that they acted without the due process of the law.
"The allegations against the applicant as to funding of terrorism, is an afterthought by the respondent, which is not backed by facts, as there is no reasonable suspicion that the applicant committed any crime.
"The law clearly defines how such duties should be performed, and so, I invite your Lordship to hold that the applicant has a cause of action against the respondent."
Justice Ibrahim Buba after taking parties' argument adjourned ruling till April 3.
0 comments: