Take a fresh look at your lifestyle.

EFCC cannot probe Seriake Dickson over asset declaration -Court rules 

EFCC, The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, has been barred from probing a former governor of the state, Seriake Dickson, with regard to the issue of assets he declared with the Code of Conduct Bureau between 2007 and 2020.

Giving the ruling in a suit number FHC/CS/81/2021, involving the Registered Trustees of Seriake Dickson Trust Incorporated and Henry Seriake Dickson as first and second plaintiffs, respectively, and the EFCC as defendant and respondent, Justice Isah Dashien of the Federal High Court sitting in Yenagoa, Bayelsa State, held that the assets acquired with loans when Dickson was a member of the House of Representatives should not be probed any further since he had declared them before the CCB and issued a certificate of verification for them.

According to Justice Dashien, said the commission lacked the powers to open further investigation into investments made by the Registered Trustees of the Seriake Dickson Trust Incorporated by virtue of the judgment and orders of the Federal High Court last year in suit number FHC/YNG//CS/40/2020.
“The invitation and interrogation of the second plaintiff by the second defendant (the EFCC), and the bid to arrest, interrogate and/or detain officers and trustees of the first plaintiff (the Registered Trustees of the Seriake Dickson Trust Incorporated) by the EFCC over matters which deal with or relate to investments made by the first plaintiff is illegal, unconstitutional and a disregard of the valid and subsisting orders of a competent court,” the judge said. 
READ ALSO: Sen Seriake Dickson, Frank Ibezim  lands vice chairmanship slots as Senate reconstitutes committees

In the earlier judgment, it was observed that apart from the declaration of assets, Dickson, now senator, representing Bayelsa West in the Ninth Senate, also subjected himself to the Voluntary Assets and Income Declaration Scheme of the Federal Government and paid taxes on the affected assets.

Consequently, the court added, the Attorney General and other Federal Government agencies were perpetually restrained.

Based on this fact, Justice Dashien granted the application of the plaintiffs for “an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, its officers, men, agents or privies from inviting the second plaintiff, officers and managers or Trustees of the first plaintiff over any matter dealing with or relating to any investment made by the first plaintiff as covered or affected by the said judgment of the Federal High Court in suit no FHC/YNF/CS/40/2020.”

Comments
Loading...