The recent decision by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to declare Mr. Bashir Abdullahi Haske wanted has been described as a blatant act of illegality and an abuse of process, especially in light of a pending motion before the Federal High Court, Abuja, challenging the validity of the warrant of arrest earlier obtained by the Commission.
According to court filings, Mr. Haske has consistently demonstrated his willingness to cooperate with the EFCC and relevant authorities.
He honoured the Commission’s invitation in July and has continued to abide by all directives, including providing medical documentation following health complications during his detention.
It is therefore concerning that, despite his compliance, an arrest warrant was sought and obtained before his agreed return date.
His legal team has since approached the court and filed a motion to vacate and set aside the warrant, arguing that it was obtained by misrepresentation, concealment of material facts, and in breach of his constitutional rights to fair hearing.
The court process was signed by Mr. Nkemakolam Okoro, a partner in the law firm of Dr. M.O. Ubani, SANLegal experts maintain that this pre-emptory action is a grave violation of the court order.
The order issued on August 8 was specifically for his arrest, not for him to be declared wanted. EFCC’s duty was to attempt execution of the arrest and, if unsuccessful, report its inability back to the court.
By bypassing this legal duty, the Commission acted in contempt of due process and undermined judicial authority, especially given that the warrant itself is under legal challenge.
Observers argue that the declaration was malicious, defamatory, and calculated to tarnish Mr. Haske’s hard-earned reputation.
The action was unnecessary, given that no charges have been filed against him and he has consistently demonstrated willingness to cooperate with investigators.
“It is trite law that where a court order is obtained by deceit or suppression of facts, the court has the inherent jurisdiction to set it aside ex debito justitiae,” Mr Nkemakolam noted, relying on established judicial precedents.
For Mr. Haske, a businessman with verifiable business records, the EFCC’s conduct smacks of bad faith.
The board of his company maintains that all contracts executed were duly awarded, executed, and paid for lawfully, contrary to EFCC’s misleading narrative.
The matter is now before the Federal High Court for determination, and many view it as a litmus test for judicial independence and the protection of citizens against arbitrary Independence and protection of citizens against arbitrary abuse of presecutorial power.
