Court declines to prevent AGF and ICPC from prosecuting lawmakers.

By Adeleye Kunle

The Federal High Court in Abuja has refused to stop the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), or any prosecuting agency from charging Mohammed Garba-Gololo, a lawmaker, with alleged certificate forgery.

Garba-Gololo represents Bauchi State’s Gamawa Federal Constituency in the House of Representatives.

In a July 25 ruling, Justice Taiwo Taiwo ruled that the lawmaker had failed to prove he had been tried for certificate forgery or falsification.

Garba-double Gololo’s jeopardy argument, as advanced by his counsel Nureini Jimoh, was rejected by the judge, who noted that he failed to produce evidence that he had gone through any trial and been convicted, acquitted, or pardoned.

AGF and ICPC are the defendants in the FHC/ABJ/CS/294/2022 lawsuit.

On October 5, 2020, the ICPC sent Garba-Gololo a letter of invitation in connection with the forgery allegation.

However, the plaintiff sought an order restraining the defendants and other prosecutorial agencies from inviting, arresting, or charging him based on similar facts in the Election Petition Tribunal and Court of Appeal cases: EPT/NAHR/BA/2019 and CA/J/EPT/NAHR/BA/374/2019.

He claimed that because a judgment had been entered against him, charging him again would amount to double jeopardy.

Garba-Gololo sought, among other things, an order quashing the letter of invitation and any subsequent investigation thereof, “as same amounts to a nullity having regard to the judgments of the Election Petition Tribunal, Bauchi, in EPT/NAHR/BA/6/2019 between Isa Mohammed Wabu & Anor. V. Hon. Mohammed Garba Gololo, dated August 10, 2019, and the Court of Appeal, dated November 1, 2019, in Appeal No. CA/

He also requested a “mandatory prohibitive order… prohibiting the defendants or any other Nigerian agency from inviting, arresting, detaining, or prosecuting the plaintiff in connection with or arising from any transaction forming part of the judgments.”

At the hearing on June 15, Jimoh for the plaintiff and Ebenezer Shogunle for the second defendant adopted their processes, outlined them, and urged the court to grant the reliefs requested by their respective parties.

In rejecting Garba-prayers, Gololo’s Justice Taiwo noted that the Election Petition Tribunal and Court of Appeal decisions on which he relied to seek immunity from prosecution were civil matters and could not be subject to the doctrine of estoppel per rem judicatam.

“There is no doubt that the decisions relate to election petitions and are civil in nature,” he stated. Despite the fact that the issue of forgery was investigated and the plaintiff was disqualified as a result of the Court of Appeal’s decision, the decisions are not criminal. The disqualification is in accordance with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution and Electoral Act.

“The suit did not result in a charge, as would be expected in criminal proceedings, and the plaintiff was not prosecuted by any prosecutorial agency.” The parties to whom the court’s decisions apply are the plaintiff and the petitioners in the election petition. As a result, the decisions cannot serve as estoppel per rem judicatam.

“From the processes filed by him, the plaintiff herein has failed to prove that he stood trial and was convicted, acquitted, or pardoned.”

“There is no evidence that the plaintiff has been tried for the crime of certificate forgery or falsification.”

“In conclusion, it is my humble and well-considered opinion that the plaintiff has failed miserably to persuade the court to answer all the questions for determination in his favor, thus entitling him to the reliefs sought.” I completely agree.

The lawsuit fails… and is thus dismissed. This is the court’s decision.”