A Federal High Court in Lagos on Friday granted reliefs sought by a former Managing Director of the Ogun Property Investment Corporation (OPIC), Mr Babajide Odusola, seeking enforcement of his fundamental rights.
Joined as respondents in the suit are Ogun State House of Assembly, the clerk of the House, inspector-general of police, assistant inspector-general of police in charge of zone II, and commissioner of police, Ogun State.
Odusola had sought an order restraining the respondents from taking any action in relation to a report by Ogun Assembly, through invitation or arrest, pending hearing and determination of the originating motion.
Justice Peter Lifu had at the last adjourned date, on Oct. 18, issued an order for the respondents to appear and show cause following an exparte application filed by the applicant.
On Friday, Mr Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa announced appearance for the applicant and Mr F. E Bolarinwa appeared for the Ogun State Ministry of Justice.
Bolarinwa sought an adjournment from the court after informing the judge that there were some hitches in the filing of processes.
However, the court noted that the respondents had not shown cause in the matter, holding that any application for adjournment was considered unmeritorious.
The court held that it was left with no option but to take the application.
Lifu consequently held that the court found the application meritorious and accordingly granted the reliefs.
He adjourned the case until Jan. 25, 2022 for hearing.
In an affidavit in support of his application, Odusola had averred that sometime in October 2020, he received a letter from the Ogun State Assembly, requesting him to appear at the sitting of its Public Account and Anti-Corruption Committee (PAAC).
He said that the sitting was purportedly to clarify some alleged irregularities in the activities of OPIC, adding that prior to this letter, he had never received any complaints or charges against him during his tenure as OPIC managing director.
According to the applicant, he honoured the invitation of PAAC, but was surprised when he was confronted with an allegation of misappropriation of funds of OPIC.
He said that he had not been priviously informed or queried.
He averred that shortly after his visit to the committee, he was again shocked to see both the social and traditional media agog with news of his investigation for alleged fraudulent activities during his tenure as OPIC managing director.
He said that the resort to ‘media trial’ without conclusion of investigation or even admitting any piece of evidence against him, was an infringement on his personal liberty.
The applicant, therefore, sought an interim order, directing parties in the suit to maintain status quo in respect of the decision of the assembly, pending final determination of the originating motion.
He also sought an order restraining the respondents from taking further steps in relation to the subject matter pending final determination of the suit.
