A High Court sitting in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja has ordered the National Crime Agency (NCA) of the United Kingdom, The Crown Prosecution Service (UK), the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) alongside other foreign-based defendants and all other parties involved in a case instituted by Aiteo founder, Benedict Peters, to maintain the status quo until the hearing of the main issues in the case.
Mr Peters had demanded $5billion in compensation for what he describes as a series of unlawful and fraudulent conspiracies allegedly organised by the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami; EFCC; NCA; Crown Prosecution Service; and individuals, Helen Hughes, Stacey Boniface and John Bavister “to expropriate by intimidation, assets, properties, monies to which he is legitimately entitled.”
In suit number FCT/HC/CV0536/17, the court heard that property belonging exclusively to Peters were wrongfully included in a list of assets alleged to belong to Nigeria’s former Minister of Petroleum, Diezani Alison-Madueke, and that despite abundant evidence showing that Peters owned the properties, the defendants maliciously and deliberately continued to suppress the information with the intent not only to permanently deprive him of the properties but to destroy him as well as his business interests.
In the proceedings, which has been described as falling within the “fraud of Carousel Tort”, the plaintiff seeks judicial protection and compensation.
At the hearing which came up in courts on Monday, June 25, Peters asked the court to restrain EFCC and the UK-based agencies from “interfering/continued interference with the properties…either by way of criminal indictment, charge, interdiction, extradition or in any other manner infringing in the quiet and peaceable enjoyment of the said properties.”
Peters, who has been involved in several litigations with the EFCC, has become the subject of sustained investigations over the last few years despite the fact that he has consistently stated that there is no basis or evidence to support such continuing interest in him.
Counsel to the AGF, A.T Gazali, challenged the court’s jurisdiction, arguing that the defendants were entitled to the protection of sovereign immunity. He also told the court that Peters had instituted a number of other cases which covered the issues he was asking the court to decide upon.
Mike Ozekhome (SAN), who led a team of lawyers for Peters, asked the court to reject the objection as being misconceived because it was based on the erroneous belief that the plaintiff was trying to set aside orders of the UK court.
Apart from the EFCC, the foreign agencies and individuals who are defendants in the case retained the services of the AGF as their counsel in the matter.
The EFCC was neither present nor represented in the court. Other defendants were also not ready to proceed because their lawyers were not prepared.
Ozekhome complained to the judge, arguing that the purpose of Peters’ application was to ask the court to protect him from the prejudice and hardship that EFCC’s continuing actions were causing him until the issues in the case were tried by the court.
After listening to the arguments of both counsel, the court made an order enjoining the parties to maintain the status quo.
By this order, all the parties in the suit are now compelled to refrain from taking any further step or embarking on any activity or action that relates to the subject matter of the suit till preliminary objections are disposed of.
The judge consequently adjourned the case to a date to be communicated to the parties.
