A former Deputy Commandant of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corp (NSCDC), Mbuotidem Daniel Akpan Edike, has lost the legal battle to enforce his human rights.
The applicant in the suit against the ICPC had argued that the commission breached his fundamental rights, as he was not properly invited for investigation before ICPC declared him wanted in a newspaper advertorial.
However a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, has affirmed that the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related Offences Commission (ICPC), never infringed on Akpan
Edike’s fundamental human rights by declaring him wanted on the pages of newspaper.
The Abuja court sitting under before Justice Evoh Chukwu ruled that the anti corruption agency having provided the court with sufficient evidence in support of its invitations sent to the applicant.
The trial judge also said that it was clearly obvious that the respondents (ICPC and its Chairman) “did everything humanly possible to invite the applicant” for investigation into a petition against him.
Akpan Edike had sought an order of the court seeking to declare the publication, purportedly declaring him wanted by the commission as a breach of his own fundamental right to liberty, in which he had also sought N10million in damages against the commission.
At the resumed hearing of the matter in which the trial judge delivered a ruling, counsel to the applicant Catherine Anene and O. G. Iwuagwu, counsel to the respondents readopted their addresses having elapsed the duration period before ruling, as stipulated under the law.
Counsel to the commission had argued that the commission invited the applicant through his workplace (NSCDC) only for the corp office to write back to the commission, informing it that the applicant under investigation had absconded from work without leave.
The applicant was said to have requested for a study leave, which was not approved, but then went ahead, even at that, the ICPC sent another invitation to a business address linked to the culprit, but his lawyers said the letter was sent wrongly, therefore the commission took the pain to send another through his lawyers which was acknowledged in 2013.