By Our Reporter
Lawyers representing Abba Kyari, Sunday Ubua, Bawa James, Simon Agirigba and John Nuhu, all senior officers of the Nigerian Police of the Inspector General of Police’s Intelligent Response Team, IGP-IRT, are currently intensifying efforts to quash the accusations against them. To this end, the lawyers have made fresh application at the Federal High Court Abuja explaining why there’s an abuse of constitutional process in the handling of the case involving them and the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA).
The fresh application was predicated on the accusations that they tempered with some of the drugs the Police officers themselves recovered from two drug traffickers arrested by the Police IRT on January 19, 2022, outside Enugu Airport.
After the drug traffickers were cleared and escorted out by compromised NDLEA officers in Enugu Airport as confessed by the arrested drug traffickers themselves, the Police officers denied the NDLEA accusations of tampering with the exhibits they recovered by themselves in the case instituted against them by the NDLEA.
Recall the Police IRT had arrested two drug traffickers, Chibunna Umeibe and Emeka Ezenwanne, outside Enugu Airport with over 21kg of Substances suspected to be cocaine from Brazil via Ethiopia after they were cleared by NDLEA officers in Enugu Airport as confessed by the Drug traffickers themselves. They were later handed over to the NDLEA for further investigations with the drugs the Police recovered from the Drug traffickers.
While both Umeibe and Ezenwanne who consistently indicted NDLEA officers in Enugu Airport for conniving with them and clearing them after payment of huge amounts in their video confessions which has gone viral and their written statements both with the Police and NDLEA received short sentence of 2yrs through a ridiculous plea bargain and have been listed as prosecution witness against the accused since they were given soft landing.
In a motion on notice seeking to strike out the charges dated October 12, 2022, filed last Thursday by Kyari’s legal team led by Dr Ikpeazu Ikpeazu (SAN), the lawyers said these alleged offences, which is being prosecuted “were allegedly committed in the course of Police investigation and constitutionally should be subjected to disciplinary measures by the Police Service Commission who have the powers to investigate these offences allegedly committed in the course of the Applicants’ duties.”
He further explained that, “the five-count charge is similar or related to allegations previously made by the Applicants’ Police Service Commission in respect of disciplinary action against Police officers, and it was for the same subject matter and for the same period. This charge against the Applicants’ affected the completion of this constitutional procedure.
“Internal disciplinary action of the Police Service Commission provided by the Constitution against the Applicants is a condition precedent before the Applicants can be charged by any other security agent/agency.
“The disciplinary action by the Police Service Commission commenced earnestly and timely. The Applicants had previously answered a query issued to them by the Police authority before the charge herein was filed against the Applicants.
“I know as a fact that the Police Service Commission has through the office of the IGP commenced the disciplinary procedure against the Applicants and other defendants prior to the institution of this charge.
He explained further that by a letter dated February 15, 2022, he was issued a query titled “Query for misconduct” where facts relating to this case were taken up against him.
He emphasized that by that letter, the process of internal discipline had commenced arguing that, “the Police authorities set out the preliminary procedures of trial to include “serve the officers queries, forward acknowledgement, obtain their representations, there after the IGP will set up the force disciplinary committee FDC who will summoned the officers in question to defend themselves and answer questions from the FDC Panel, there after the FDC committee will deliberate on the matters and forward their comments and recommendations of punishments Ranging from reprimand, reduction in Rank, Dismissal to Dismissal and Prosecution to the IGP.
In line with the Constitutional provisions and Police Act, the IGP will forward his comment and Recommendations from the Force Disciplinary Committee FDC to the Police Service commission.
“The Police Service commission which is the only body created by the Constitution to deal with all matters relating to police promotion, discipline and all Allegations against police officers except the IGP, recruitment and other duties have a chairman as the head and 6 Commissioners from the 6 geo political zones of the country and each of the Commissioners also represents different section of the society ranging from Judiciary, Media, Civil Societies, Human Rights, etc as prescribed by the Constitution.
“The Chairman and the Commissioners will sit and decide each of the cases during plenary and their decision is final according to the Constitution. They can decide to dismiss an officer, reduce his rank or dismiss and prosecution depending on the gravity of the offence committed.
“I know as a fact that these are in line with the Constitution but the complainant disregarded the same by filing this charge against the defendants who are serving Police officers.”
He further argued that: “Without subjecting the applicants to the Police disciplinary procedures that are constitutionally set down, the applicants are charged before the Federal High Court with counts 1, 2, 3, 4 & 8 under the NDLEA Act and alleged to have committed the offences in the course of the performance of their duties as Police Officers.
“Failure of the complainant herein to await the disciplinary action against the applicants renders the charge incompetent and deprives this court of jurisdiction to entertain this charge.
“The applicants have not waived their rights under the Police disciplinary control which has begun before the instant charge was filed,” he prayed the court.
He, therefore, applied to the court that in the interest of Justice to grant his “application and the respondents will not be prejudiced by grant of this application.”
