By Innocent Anaba

A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has held that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, has statutory powers to investigate former President Goodluck Jonathan’s Special Adviser on Niger Delta and Coordinator of the Presidential Amnesty Programme, PAP, Dr. Kingsley Kuku, over alleged financial impropriety.

Trial judge, Justice Okon Abang, also held that the anti-graft agency has the right to arrest Kuku if he refuses to honour the commission’s invitation.

Justice Abang, however, ordered EFCC to comply with the law and respect the former presidential aide’s right not to be detained beyond 24 hours.

The judge ruled that the travail of the former special adviser had nothing to do with his political affiliation.

Justice Abang was ruling in a fundamental rights suit by Kuku against the EFCC and the Department of State Services, DSS, where he had prayed the court for protection against his unlawful arrest and detention by the anti-graft agency and DSS.

The applicant, who is on medical treatment abroad, alleged that there was a plan to arrest him at the airport in Lagos on his return to Nigeria.

Kuku had averred that unless the court intervened, he might be arrested and detained by the anti-graft body. He alleged that his arrest was instigated by the ruling All Progressives Congress, APC.

EFCC, however, challenged the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit, urging the court not to grant any order stopping the investigation of those alleged to have stolen public funds.

It informed the court that it had received a petition from one Dada Olubisi on behalf of former militants complaining of malpractices in the disbursement of the amnesty fund.

The anti-graft agency insisted that it was empowered under sections 6 and 7 of the EFCC (Establishment) Act, 2004 to investigate financial crimes as well as arrest suspects.

In his ruling, Justice Abang held that the court had jurisdiction to hear Kuku’s suit. He, however, dismissed the applicant’s claim that APC was behind the petition against him, saying: “It is my humble view that the invitation sent to the applicant is lawful and constitutional.”