By Ibeawuchi Ambrose Uwaleke.
(Advocatenewsng.com) 09064186047.
A Federal High Court, Kaduna division, sitting before Justice H. Buhari has ordered forthwith the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, (EFCC), its agents, privies or servants from taking any steps now or in the future to invite, arrest, detain, harass, arraign or interfere in any matter involving the applicant, Alhaji Rabiu Auwalu Tijjani and one Ifeanyi Ezeokoli, named as second defendant in this action, until the motion on notice brought along with the ex-parte action is heard and determined.
Having ordered thus far, Justice Buhari fixed September 18, 2025 to hear the motion on notice brought by Tijjani to press for his fundamental human rights which he is alleging the anti-graft agency is threatening by declaring him wanted in a publication on its website, when in reality he is not missing or involved in any fraudulent activity within and outside the country.
The suit, No:FHC/KD/CS/88/2025 was brought under the inherent jurisdiction of the court for the enforcement of Tijjani’s fundamental rights to personal liberty and freedom of movement under Sections 35 and 46 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (As amended), and also in the matter of fundamental rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 as made by the Chief Justice of Nigeria pursuant to Section 46 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, (As amended).
This enrolled order was issued on July 21, 2025 and signed by the Registrar of the court, A.M. Bello under the hand and seal of the presiding judge, Hon. Justice H. Buhari who heard the matter as argued by Mr. Muhammad Zakariyya Dikko, Esq, a lawyer in the applicant’s legal team led by a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN, Mr. Edwin Anikwem.
The grounds for which the applicant sought and obtained the restraining order of court against EFCC were:
. That the applicant (Tijjani) had first petitioned Ifeanyi Ezeokoli, (the 2nd defendant) before the Directorate of State Security, (DSS).
. That upon the petition of the applicant, both parties submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the DSS which commenced investigation and was at the point of conclusion.
. That both parties had engaged an independent auditor to audit their transaction in issue.
. That it was when the auditors were at the verge of rounding up the auditing of the transaction in issue.
. That the 2nd respondent, Ifeanyi Ezeokoli rushed to the 1st respondent, EFCC and filed a petition against the applicant, (Tijjani).
. That the 1st respondent vide WhatsApp call reached out to the applicant in Dubai, United Arab Emirates and requested him to send a representative in Nigeria.
. That the applicant sent a representative who submitted documents buttressing the transaction in issue and was asked to drop his telephone number to be contacted which he did.
. That the 1st respondent without contacting the applicant’s representative published him wanted in its official website hence this application.
It is as a result of the foregoing that the applicant through a motion on notice to press for his fundamental human rights as a bona fide citizen of Nigeria, approached the court with the following reliefs:
. A declaration that the sudden or hasty publication/declaration of the applicant’s name/picture as being wanted by the first respondent (EFCC) in its official website dated 11th July, 2025 or thereabout without exhausting all available administrative avenues or channels, having known that the applicant is not ordinarily resident in Nigeria is unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void and a gross violation of the applicant’s fundamental right to liberty, dignity of human person and fair hearing.
. A declaration that the publication of the name/picture of the applicant in the official website of the 1st respondent (EFCC) dated 11th July, 2025 or thereabout without serving him any official written invitation during the pendency of the applicant’s prior petition before a sister agency, (DSS) to the full knowledge of the respondents is a gross abuse of investigative process and therefore null and void.
. A declaration that the 1st respondent having become aware of the pendency of the applicant’s prior petition against the 2nd respondent before a sister agency, (DSS), over the same transaction, ought not to have entertained the subsequent petition of the 2nd respondent against the applicant and declared him wanted.
. A declaration that the 1st respondent by its enabling Act lacks the statutory power to criminalize commercial transactions freely entered into between the applicant an the 2nd respondent to the dangerous extent of declaring the applicant wanted over a simple commercial transaction.
. An order of this court quashing the publication of the name/picture of the applicant in the 1st respondent’s official Website: www.efcc.gov.ng as a wanted person.
. An order of this court restraining the 1st respondent, (EFCC), from disturbing, interfering with the fundamental right to liberty of the applicant through any form(s) of threats, invitation, arrest, detention, intimidation, harassment an unnecessary interrogation howsoever with regard to the 2nd respondent’s complaint in issue against the applicant.
. An order of this court compelling the 1st respondent to tender an unreserved public apology in five national daily newspapers and in 10 online media outfits to the applicant for the infringement of his fundamental rights.
. An order of the court awarding the applicant the sum of N1,000,000,000, (One billion Naira only) as exemplary damages for the flagrant violation of his fundamental rights to wit: illegal and unconstitutional publication declaring him wanted without any reasonable or probable cause whatsoever, and
. An order of this court awarding the applicant the sum of N500,000,000 (Five hundred million Naira only) as general damages.
The reliefs are supported by a 34-paragraph affidavit deposed to by Mr. Muhammad Zakariyya Dikko, a legal practitioner of Nigerian citizenship, residing in Wuse Zone 7 of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.
In the affidavit, the applicant, Alhaji Rabiu Auwalu Tijjani is said to be a renowned international gold merchant in Dubai, United Arab Emirate, UAE and the first ever licenced gold merchant in Nigeria to be granted licence by the Nigerian Government to establish a Gold Refinery in the country, which project is currently ongoing in Abuja, the nation’s capital.
The deponent also averred that prior to the grant of the gold refinery licence to the applicant and his company, Special Jewelry Limited, and owing to the strategic national security importance of the refinery to Nigeria, himself and his company were thoroughly subjected to intensive internal and external security checks by the relevant Nigerian security agencies, which checks gave them a clean record as to entitle them to the grant of the licence.
It was further deposed that since the publication of the applicant by the 1st respondent, which publication has gone viral and reported by several other social media handles, he has been inundated by calls from family members, friends, business associates, etc round the world enquiring how he suddenly became involved in questionable activities to the extent of being declared wanted.
Again, Dikko Esq, contended that he was informed by his lead counsel, Edwin Anikwem, SAN, in the course of taking his instant brief at their said conference telephone call and he verily believed him to be true, that the EFCC officials handling the matter are professionally bias, very mischievous and lack any iota of respect/regard for due process and constitutional rights of citizens including the applicant who is constitutionally presumed innocent until proved guilty in a court of law.
He, in addition, said that the unfair/unjust publication of the applicant’s name/picture as being a wanted person or its continuous retention on the official website of the EFCC has caused unimaginable damage to his person, businesses and in particular constituting a major disservice to his ongoing process of establishing the first ever Gold Refinery in Nigeria as his co-investors are already having a rethink.
The deponent concluded by adding that it will be in the overall interest of justice to grant the applicant’s reliefs as prayed.
