High Chief Raymond Dokpesi, founder of DAAR Communications Plc, has requested the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja to issue an order to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to unfreeze his bank account.
This followed a ruling by Court of Appeal, Abuja, which discharged the politician and media owner and his firm, DAAR Investment and Holding Company Limited, of the charges of money laundering, breach of Procurement Act in relation to disbursement of N2.1billion meant for arms purchase brought against them by the EFCC.
Making his submission before Justice John Tsoho, Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Abuja, counsel to Dokpesi, KANU Agabi, SAN, argued that the criminal charges in respect of N2.1B brought against Dokpesi by the EFCC had since been quashed hence he had been discharged by the Court of Appeal, Abuja division and the charge no longer exist.
Agabi further argued that the EFCC has not obtain a stay of execution of the Court of Appeal's judgement and therefore has no legal stand to continue to place freezing order on the defendant's account, just as he tendered two judgements of the court to establish his claim.
But in Opposition, counsel to the EFCC, Oluwaleke Atolagbe, argued that the anti graft agency has already filled notice of appeal.
He prayed the court not to unfreeze the account yet until the final decision of the supreme court.
The attention of the court was also drawn to the request for the release of Dokpesi's document of which the EFCC said there was no specification and that the DSS , NIA made as respondent in the matter were absent in the court, and as such, court can not make valid order against them.
Jistice Tsoho subsequently fixed August 3 to deliver ruling on the matter.
Dokpesi was arraigned alongside Daar Investment and Holdings Ltd.
They were alleged to have received the sum of N2.1B from the office of the national security adviser between October 2014 and march 2015, which was said to have been used for People's Democratic Party campaign, an allegation dismissed by the court of appeal.
No comments:
Post a Comment