A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos, on Monday, ordered the Ogun State House of Assembly to appear before it and show cause why the court should not grant the reliefs sought by a former Managing Director of the Ogun State Property Investment Corporation (OPIC), Mr Babajide Odusola.
Other respondents in the suit are: The Clerk of the Ogun State House of Assembly, the Inspector General of Police , Assistant Inspector General of Police Zone II, and the Commissioner of Police Ogun State.
Justice Peter Lifu gave the order for parties to appear it and show cause why he should not grant the reliefs been sought by the plaintiff following an exparte application filed by the applicant, seeking enforcement of his fundamental rights against the respondents.
Odusola in the ex-parte application is seeking an order restraining the respondents from taking any action in relation to a report by the State House of Assembly through invitation or arrest, pending the hearing and determination of the originating motion.
When the matter came up for hearing today, Mr Adetunji Adedoyin-Adeniyi appearing with Mr Oluwatosin Adesioye, announced appearances for the applicant.
Applicant counsel informed the court of their exparte application seeking injuctive reliefs before the court.
After going through the application, the court noted that he had seen the reliefs sought by the applicant.
Justice Lifu, consequently, adjourned the matter till November 1, 2021 for all the parties to appear before the court and show cause why the reliefs being sought by the applicant, should not be granted .
“The respondents herein are hereby given seven days from today to appear and show cause why the prayers of the applicant should not be granted,” he held.
The court also ordered that the respondents should file thier responses to the applicant’s motion within seven days from today
In an affidavit filed in support of his application, Odusola averred that sometime in October 2020, he received a letter from the Ogun State House of Assembly requesting him to appear at the sitting of its Public Account and Anti-Corruption Committee (PAAC).
He stated that the sitting was purportedly meant to clarify some alleged irregularities in the activities of OPIC, adding that prior to this letter, he had never received any complaint or charges against him, during his tenure as OPIC MD.
According to him, he honoured the invitation of PAAC, but was surprised when he was confronted with allegations of misappropriation of OPIC funds for which he had not been priviously informed or queried.
He further averred that shortly after his visit to the committee, he was again shocked to see both the social and traditional media agog with scandalous news of his investigation for alleged fraudulent activities during his tenure as OPIC Managing Director.
He said the resort to media trial without conclusion of investigation or even admitting any piece of evidence against him is an infringement on his personal liberty.
The applicant, therefore, seeks an interim order, directing respondents to maintain status quo, in respect of the decision of the Assembly, pending final determination of the originating motion.
He also seeks an order restraining the respondents from taking further steps in relation to the subject matter , pending final determination of the suit.
Meanwhile, the court has fixed November 1, 2021 for all the parties to appear and show cause why these prayers sought by the plaintiff should not be granted.
