The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday rejected a suit seeking an order compelling the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission to investigate certain corruption allegations against the National Chairman of the All Progressives Congress,
Justice Anwuli Chikere, in her judgment, struck out the case after upholding the separate notices of preliminary objection filed against the suit by Oshiomhole and the EFCC.
In her judgment, Justice Chikere held that the plaintiff, Bishop Osadolor Ochei, having failed to institute the suit within three months after his petition to the EFCC requesting an investigation into the allegations against Oshiomhole, was not acted on, the case had become “statute-barred.”
Ochei had on October 28, 2016 petitioned the EFCC, asking the commission to investigate some corruption allegations leveled against Oshiomhole as governor of Edo State.
Dissatisfied with EFCC’s alleged refusal to look into the case, Ochei filed the suit marked, FHC/ABJ/CS/628/ 2018, before the Federal High Court in Abuja seeking an order of mandamus to compel the EFCC to arrest and commence criminal proceedings against Oshiomhole over alleged financial fraud while he was the governor of Edo State.
The plaintiff attached 86 exhibits to his suit.
Through his lawyer, West Idahosa, the plaintiff alleged that while in office as governor, Oshiomhole acquired properties in United States of America, South Africa and Dubai worth billions of United States of American dollar and far in excess of his legitimate income.
He alleged that Oshiomhole built a sprawling mansion worth more than N10bn in his home town known as Iyamho, while he was in office as governor.
The plaintiff stated in his suit, “The said building was constructed by Verissimo, a South African architectural outfit.
“The said house of the 2nd respondent (Oshiomhole) has swimming pools, water fountains, multiple theatres for cinema and live performances, huge event halls, bridges, man-made lake, lodges of different sizes amongst others.
“The said cost of building the mansion is well outside the 2nd respondent’s legitimate income. The 2nd respondent’s lifestyle and extent of the said property were not justified by his source of income.”