Justice Nnamdi Dimgba of the Federal High Court, Abuja held yesterday that the temporary order of attachment granted in relation to some identified assets of Ekiti State Governor Ayo Fayose did not violate the constitutional provision of immunity for Governors.

The judge said the intention of the immunity clause as guaranteed to some public office holders is not to shield them from investigation by security agencies for the purpose of obtaining evidence for future uses.

Fayose’s counsel, Mike Ozekhome, SAN, had sought to vacate the order of interim attachment granted by the court on July 20 to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC in relation to the commission’s investigation of some activities of the governor and some of his associates.

The affected property to which the order relate, include four sets of four-bedroom apartments at Chalets 3, 4, 6 and 9, Plot 100, Tiaminu Savage, Victoria Island, Lagos as well as plot 44 Osun Crescent, Maitama, Abuja and Plot 1504 Yedzeram Street, Maitama Abuja.

The EFCC had stated that the funds used for the purchase of the properties were said to be drawn from the sum of N1, 219,490,000, which was said to be part of the N4, 745,000,000, allegedly stolen from the treasury of the Federal Government through the Office of the National Security Adviser.

In his application filed on notice on July 21, Ozekhome hinged his request for the court to set aside the order of interim forfeiture on the grounds that Fayose, as a sitting governor enjoys immunity as provided for in Section 308 of the Constitution.

Justice Dimgba upheld the argument of EFCC lawyer Andrew Akoja, to the effect that the forfeiture order was validly made.

“It is my considered opinion that the order of court, made on July 20, 2016 in respect of some property of the applicant, and within the limited scope and duration within which it was obtained, was duly procured and does not offend the provision of the Constitution referred to,” the judge said.

Justice Dimgba said although Section 308 of the Constitution serves to protect governors of states from the distraction of litigation and legal proceedings, to enable them to attend to official responsibilities, it does mean that the EFCC or other investigating agencies cannot take a peep into the assets or personal accounts of a serving governor in the execution of a strictly worded and mutually supervised interim attachment orders for the purposes of obtaining evidence for use in future when the immunity has lapsed.

He however ordered that the interim forfeiture order shall last for 45 days, within which investigations must be concluded in respect of the property.

“In the light of the above, I hold that the applicant is not entitle to the reliefs sought and are hereby refused.

“However, in the interest of justice and not to appear to make a mockery or nonsense of the immunity clause, I hold that the interim attachment order of July 20, 2016, granted by this court in favour of the respondent (EFCC) shall last for 45 days as the court had already ordered, within which the respondents must conclude their investigation in respect of those property, at the end of which every encumbrance on the property arising from the order of court, must abate.

“I order that in the event that the respondent may wish to renew the interim attachment order as they are entitled to, they must serve the motion to that effect on the applicant not later than five days to the expiration of that order, without which the order shall stand abated,” Justice Dimgba said.