A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has issued an order restraining the Senate from going ahead with the probe of former Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, Ibrahim Lamorde, over an alleged N1 trillion scam.
The fraud was allegedly committed when Lamorde was the Director of Operations of the anti-graft agency between 2003 and 2007 as well as acting chairman between June 2007 and May 2008, when the pioneer chairman of the commission, Nuhu Ribadu, was compulsorily drafted to attend a course at the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies, Kuru, Jos.
The Senate, however, launched a probe into the activities of the former EFCC chair based on some petitions, including the one written by Dr. George Uboh, Chief Executive Officer of Panic Alert Security Systems, a security firm.
In his petition, Mr. Uboh accused Lamorde of some under-remittance and non-disclosure of proceeds of corruption recovered from criminal suspects.
He also claimed that the EFCC under Lamorde doctored bank accounts.
Lamorde, who went to court to stop the Senate from going ahead with the probe, also refused to honour its Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions’ invitation to appear before it and clear himself of the weighty allegations leveled against him.
Following his non-appearance despite repeated summons, the committee while submitting its report, recommended that the Senate issue a warrant for the former EFCC boss’ arrest.
But Mr. Lamorde, in a motion ex parte dated March 7, 2016 through his counsel, Festus Ukpue, asked the court to stop the Senate from issuing a warrant of arrest of his client pending the hearing and determination of the suit before the court.
Justice Gabriel Kolawole, after listening to the ex parte motion ordered, “That a limited order on injunction is hereby granted to restrain the defendants pending when they are heard on the reply to the plaintiff’s motion on notice.
“That the plaintiff’s counsel is hereby directed to obtain a certified true copy of the order in this ruling, and shall cause same to be served on the Inspector-General of Police who shall, on the authority of this court’s order refrain to give any effect to any such warrant which the defendants may have issues against the plaintiff”.