Follow Us on Google
From Godwin Tsa Abuja
The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) has called on the Inspector-General of Police and the Lagos State Commissioner of Police to ensure the immediate protection of the complainant, witnesses and their legal representatives in the Lekki land grabbing case.
The call is predicated on what HURIWA considers a gross abuse of judicial process arising from the alleged directive of the Lagos State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Mr. Lawal Pedro, SAN, to reinvestigate a criminal case already pending before a competent court of law.
Speaking yesterday at a press briefing in Abuja, the national coordinator of the group, Emmanuel Onwubiko, said the complainant, witnesses and their legal representatives must be shielded from harassment, intimidation and abuse of process.
He explained that, “this case concerns a well-documented instance of land grabbing in Lekki — a case thoroughly investigated by the Special Enquiry Bureau (SEB) of the Force Criminal Investigation Department, which culminated in a five-count criminal charge now before Justice Sherifat Sonaike of the Lagos State High Court sitting at Tafawa Balewa Square.
The complainant, Obidigwe Eze, a U.S.-based dentist, lawfully purchased the property in 2005 through a legitimate chain of ownership originating from Major Hamza Al-Mustapha (rtd), former Chief Security Officer to the late Head of State, General Sani Abacha. Eze lived peacefully on the property for over 10 years until it was unlawfully demolished and taken over while he was abroad — an act for which the alleged perpetrators now face trial.
Yet, despite the matter being properly before the court, the Attorney-General has allegedly directed a fresh reinvestigation — an act that we find deeply troubling, unnecessary, and constitutionally questionable.
HURIWA noted that the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria indeed grants the Attorney-General broad prosecutorial powers.
“However, Section 211(3) of the Constitution expressly provides that “the Attorney-General shall have regard to the public interest, the interest of justice, and the need to prevent abuse of legal process.
“The operative word here is “shall” — not may. It is mandatory, not discretionary. Therefore, these guiding principles are binding obligations, not polite suggestions. Any attempt to exercise prosecutorial authority outside these limits would constitute bad faith and a violation of the Constitution itself.
“The Attorney-General’s powers are not absolute; they are circumscribed by law, morality, and accountability, “ Onwubiko stated.
On influence-peddling and ethical responsibility, the group said it was equally disturbed by credible reports indicating that Mr. Adebayo Akeju, one of the defendants, has been making unsubstantiated and boastful claims about his supposed high-level connections within the judiciary.
Other News
We have learned that he has repeatedly bragged about his past working relationship with Akintola Kekere-Ekun, allegedly exploiting that association — probably unbeknown to Ekun — to create the impression of influence and to curry favor within the Ministry of Justice.
Let it be stated without ambiguity:
The Attorney-General is a public officer, not a private advocate. Under Sections 13 and 15(5) of the Nigerian Constitution, he is bound to abolish corrupt practices and abuse of power.
Therefore, any conduct that even remotely suggests bias, influence, or compromise is not only unethical — it is unconstitutional.
On the Contradiction from the Defence Itself,he said what makes this development even more perplexing was that during the last court sitting, Tayo Oyetibo (SAN) — counsel to one of the defendants,publicly opposed the Attorney-General’s directive for reinvestigation, describing it as an abuse of judicial process.
“ We must therefore, ask:
Whose interest is the Attorney-General’s directive meant to serve when even the defendant’s own senior counsel opposes it in open court?
“ Assuming without conceding that the initial investigation was faulty, then any charges arising from it would naturally be weak, to the defendants’ advantage during trial. Yet, ironically, the defendants appear desperate to avoid trial altogether, rather than face it.
“ Worse still, two of the defendants are lawyers, ministers in the temple of justice, who ought to welcome their day in court if they believe in their innocence. Instead, they appear to be pressuring the Attorney-General to file a nolle prosequi in their favour.
“ Why the desperation to derail the trial through withdrawals and reinvestigation? One need not look too far , the answer lies in statements and correspondence by Major Mustapha, now in the public record, which expose the coordinated attempt to rewrite history.”
All parties were afforded fair hearing during the original SEB investigation — a transparent process that led to valid criminal charges. To now order a reinvestigation serves no legal or public purpose other than to delay justice and complicate due process.
