EFCC Denies Threatening Lagos Governor Sanwo-Olu, Calls His Claims Unfounded
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has opposed the fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by Lagos State Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu, urging the Federal High Court in Abuja to dismiss his application.
In a counter affidavit, the EFCC described the governor’s claims as speculative, stating that there is no credible evidence to support his assertion of being under threat of arrest, detention, or prosecution.
The EFCC further argued that the governor’s action was based on conjecture and lacked any factual basis, as no formal investigation or threat had been made against him.
Sanwo-Olu had sought several reliefs, including declarations that his right to private life, personal liberty, and freedom of movement, as guaranteed by the Nigerian Constitution, had been infringed upon by the EFCC. He also requested the court to restrain the anti-graft agency from harassing, arresting, or prosecuting him about his tenure as governor. The governor’s legal team, led by Darlington Ozurumba, argued that the EFCC’s alleged threats were politically motivated and aimed at tarnishing his reputation.
In response, the EFCC denied any involvement in threatening or harassing Sanwo-Olu, stating that the agency had never invited him or his aides for questioning. The EFCC clarified that any invitations it issues are formal and include the officer’s name, rank, and other relevant details to ensure transparency. The agency also emphasized that there was no ongoing investigation or credible intelligence linking Sanwo-Olu to any criminal activity that would justify an arrest or detention.
The EFCC’s counter affidavit, filed by Ufuoma Ezire, a Litigation Secretary in the agency’s Legal and Prosecution Department, stressed that the governor’s claims were unfounded and intended to mislead the court. The EFCC maintained that there was no petition or information that would warrant any action against Sanwo-Olu. Consequently, the anti-graft agency urged the court to reject the governor’s application, arguing that granting the reliefs would not be in the interest of justice.