Onnoghen: Court refuses to stop arrest of Fani Kayode, Odumakin

A Federal High Court in Abuja has declined the request by former Aviation Minister, Femi Fani Kayode and Afenifere Renewal Group Publicity Secretary Yinka Odumakin for an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Department of State Services (DSS) and the police from arresting or detaining them.

The request was contained in a fundamental rights enforcement suit which Fani Kayode and Odumakin filed earlier this year in the wake of threat by the EFCC to invite them in relation to their alleged involvement in the spread of false rumour about a purported invasion of the residence of the suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen by EFCC officials.

Fani Kayode and Odumakin had prayed the court for among others, “an order of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents, by themselves, agents, privies or anybody deriving authority from them by whatever name called, from harassing, intimidating, abducting or detaining the applicants.”

But, in a judgment on Monday, Justice John Tsoho elected to grant a modified variant of the applicants’ prayer, to the effect that any arrest or detention of Fani Kayode and Odumakin by the respondents must comply with due process of the law.

Justice Tsoho also rejected the applicants’ prayer for an order directing the respondents to tender unreserved public apology to them.

The judge equally declined the request by Fani Kayode and Odumakin for an award of N20million “as damages for the unlawful threat to arrest the applicants.”

Justice Tsoho however held that since Section 46 of the Constitution allows the filing of anticipatory suit where an individual suspects that his or her rights were about to be breached, he was convinced that there was threat to violate the applicants’ rights.

The judge noted that, by the way the EFCC went about publishing its threat to invite the applicants, and the “intemperate language” deployed in the press release authored by Orilade Tony, he was convinced that the applicants established a cause of action and the likelihood of their rights being breached.

He proceeded to grant prayers 1, 2, 4 and 6, which include a declaration that the respondents’ public declaration to arrest the applicants on the basis of spreading false rumours was an infringement of their fundamental rights as enshrined in Section 34 (a), 35 (1) (4) and (5) of the 1999 Constitution.

The court also declared that They said the threat to falsely imprison their liberty, safety, peace and security was a breach of their rights enshrined in Section 34 (a), 35 (1) (4) and (5) of the 1999 Constitution.