EFCC appeals Kogi court’s ruling, seeks stay of committal order

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), filing a motion before the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal, sought a stay of execution of the judgment of the Kogi State High Court in Suit No: HCL/696/2022 between Ali Bello and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, and Others, delivered on 12^th of December, 2022 and the consequential order made on the 6^th of February, 2023.

EFCC Head of Media and Publicity, Wilson Uwujaren, in statement on Thursday disclosed that other reliefs sought in the motion on notice, include an Order of interlocutory injunction restraining the Appellants/Applicant from attempting to execute/ enforce the judgment of the trial Court pending the final hearing and determination of the appeal.

The EFCC Head of Media and Publicity maintained that in the supporting affidavit to the application, deposed to by Samuel Anele Ugwuegbulam, he affirmed that the Appellants have “strong, good and arguable grounds of appeal”.

He averred that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the matter as the alleged infringement of the respondent’s fundamental human rights occurred in Abuja, and no element of it took place in Lokoja. Therefore, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to proceed to hear the suit, a fact which the Appellant dully raised before His Lordship.

He further pointed out that the Appellant had applied to the trial court for compilation and transmission of the record of appeal, but as at the time of filing the motion, the file of the case was yet to be released to enable transmission of the record to the registry of the Appellate Court

EFCC argued that rather than allow the record of the appeal to be transmitted, the trial court proceed to cite the Appellant on 6^th February for contempt.

The deponent further averred that that, “If the execution/enforcement of the judgment of the 12^th of December, 2022 and the pronouncement of the trial Court of 6^th of February, 2023 is not stayed, it will jeopardize the Appellants/Applicants’ constitutional right of appeal and exercise of his statutory functions.”