Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image

KonkNaija Media | May 2, 2016

Scroll to top

Top

AGF’s Absence Stalls Hearing of Suit to Prosecute MTN Directors

Absence of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Mr. Mohammed Adoke (SAN) last Friday stalled the hearing of a suit filed at the Federal High Court in Abuja by a former Governor of Osun State, Mr. Olagunsoye Oyinlola, seeking to compel the AGF to prosecute MTN Nigeria for alleged suppression of evidence.

At the resumed hearing of the suit on Friday, no counsel was in court to represent the office of the AGF, who is the first respondent in the suit. This prompted the court to adjourn the matter till January 16, 2014 and ordered that a fresh hearing notice be served on the AGF.

The trial judge, Justice Adeniyi Ademola, however, noted that with or without the appearance of the AGF on the next adjourned date, the court would go ahead with the matter because the AGF had exhausted his statutory time to appear.

Oyinlola had already got the leave of the court to commence proceeding for an order of mandamus to compel the AGF to prosecute MTN and its directors.

In the suit, Oyinlola contended that MTN deliberately withheld communications between retired President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Ayo Salami and the leadership of the defunct Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) from the National Judicial Council’s (NJC’s) panel that investigated his petition against Salami.

The suit was filed pursuant to Order 34 Rules 1(1)&3 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) rules 2009, Section 174 (1) (2) & (3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

The court had however asked the applicant to put the respondents on notice. At the last hearing, the second respondent (MTN) was not represented in court following which the applicant’s counsel, Adebisi Raimi however informed the court that MTN had not been served with the court process and further prayed for leave to serve the second defendant out of jurisdiction. The request was granted and the matter adjourned the matter to December 20 for mention. In a similar development, Oyinlola had petitioned an official of the MTN, Rotimi Odusola, over alleged perjury.

In a petition addressed to the Inspector General of Police, Oyinlola alleged that Odusola consciously and deliberately misled the NJC when he appeared before its Special Investigative Panel to testify by denying the release from his very department, of call data records which spanned a period of five months.

He further alleged that Odusola went ahead to commit perjury by deposing in his witness statement on oath that MTN’s capacity to store and generate call detail history was limited to three months even as the call data records in question covering five months were earlier released to Area G command, Ogba, Lagos.

Oyinlola is praying the court for an order of mandamus compelling the AGF to prosecute MTN and its directors by instituting and undertaking criminal proceedings against them for committing the offence of an attempt to suppress evidence.

In his argument, Raimi submitted that consequent upon the corporate, ethical and professional misconduct of the 2nd respondent before the National Judicial Council Special Investigative Panel set up in 2011, which affected negatively the interest of the Applicant, the Applicant on March 15, 2012 forwarded a petition to the Minister of Police Affairs and the Inspector-General of Police complaining about the aforementioned misconduct of the 2nd respondent.

He further argued that the IG charged a Special Task Force to investigate the matter and on February 8, 2013 a police report in respect of the matter was released. He also submitted that the aforementioned police report recommended that the MTN be prosecuted for an attempt to suppress evidence, adding that the entire case file together with the police report had been transferred by the Force Headquarters to the Office of the AGF for necessary legal actions.

The plaintiff however submitted that till date, the Office of the AGF had refused, failed or neglected to institute and undertake criminal proceedings against the 2nd respondent and its directors despite several demands to do so by the applicant.

He added that the office of the AGF had also failed or refused to authorise the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) of the Federation (DPP) or any other qualified officer of the Federal Ministry of Justice to institute and undertake criminal proceedings against the 2nd respondent and its directors.

He also argued that it was the sacred and constitutional duty of the 1st respondent under Section 174 (1), (2) and (3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) to institute and undertake criminal proceedings against any person before any court of law in Nigeria in respect of any offence created by or under any Act of the National Assembly.

He also submitted that the AGF had failed, refused or neglected to have regard to public interest and interest of justice enshrined in Section 174(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

Source: All Africa