TheCable

A federal capital territory high court has dismissed an application from Olu Agunloye, a former minister of power and steel, seeking to invite “amici curiae” to intervene in the criminal charge filed against him.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is prosecuting Agunloye over a $6 billion Mambilla hydropower contract.

The anti-graft agency said it traced some suspicious payments by Sunrise Power and Transmission Ltd to Agunloye’s bank accounts.

Former President Olusegun Obasanjo had also challenged Agunloye to tell Nigerians where he derived the authority to award a $6 billion contract to Sunrise for the Mambilla hydropower project in 2003.

Agunloye was arraigned on a seven-count charge bordering on fraudulent award of a contract and official corruption.

In a preliminary objection dated February 6, Agunloye said the EFCC lacks the powers to prosecute him because the offences levelled against him do not border on financial crimes.

Among other things, the former minister said it is the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) that has the power to prosecute him over the allegations contained in the charge.

Agunloye through his lawyer, Adeola Adedipe, added that contrary to constitutional provisions, the AGF did not give EFCC the fiat to investigate and institute proceedings in the case against his client.

In the motion for an amicus, the senior advocate of Nigeria said he would want the friends of the court to be present during the hearing of the preliminary objection.

An amicus curiae (friend of the court) is an individual who is not a party to a litigation, but volunteers or is invited to advise on a pending matter.

Agunloye sought the intervention of Lateef Fagbemi, the attorney-general of the federation (AGF); Yakubu Maikyau, president of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA); Joseph Daudu, former NBA president; and Kanu Agabi, former minister of justice.

Ruling on the application on Monday, Jude Onwuegbuzie, the presiding judge, dismissed the request.

Onwuegbuzie said he believed the defendant had a competent team of lawyers to handle the case.

He added that “the court is not confused or in doubt to warrant the intervention of amici curiae”.

He said an amicus “is not supposed to be invited by parties in the suit” but that it is the responsibility of the court to do so if it so desires. 

Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The court has fixed April 22 to hear the defendant’s preliminary objection.