TheCable

A high court in Markurdi has struck out the suit filed by Samuel Ortom, former governor of Benue and his deputy, Benson Abounu, challenging the retrieval of over 32 vehicles from them by the incumbent state government.

In July, the asset recovery committee set up by Hyacinth Alia, governor of Benue, raided an automobile shop allegedly owned by Ortom.

Alia had accused Ortom’s administration of looting, alleging that he “met no single car or truck in government house”.

The committee was said to have seized some vehicles during the operation and used towing vans to pull out others, after attempts to drive them away failed.

In the suit marked MHC/199/2023, the former governor and his deputy through their lawyer, Douglas Pepe, a senior advocate of Nigeria (SAN), submitted that over 32 vehicles donated to the plaintiffs by the Benue state executive council were retrieved before the expiration of their tenure on May 29, 2023.

The counsel argued that it was an affront to their constitutional right to ownership.

However, in a preliminary objection, Mohammed Ndarani, counsel to Benue governor, the state government and the asset recovery committee, prayed the court to dismiss the suit.

Ndarani challenged the jurisdiction of the court to entertain, hear and determine the suit on the grounds that it was speculative as it failed to identify the cars and properties allegedly taken from the plaintiffs.

He submitted that the aim of the suit was to restrict the governor’s use of his executive authority to form committees that would be useful in the state’s administration. 

Ndarani said the plaintiffs failed to bring before the court, the committee’s terms of reference to enable the court determine whether or not they went beyond their scope.

The lawyer said the plaintiffs failed to show whether or not the committee had concluded its investigation adding that for investigative purposes, temporary seizure is allowed under the constitution. 

However, in the ruling delivered on Wednesday, Theresa Igoche, presiding judge, upheld the preliminary objection filed by the defendants, noting that the suit was speculative for failing to establish a cause of action.

The judge also ruled that the suit sought to delimit the constitutional powers of the defendants, as provided by Section 5(2) of the constitution.