Court dismisses Ortom’s suit to stop corruption probe

A High Court in Makurdi on Tuesday dismissed two applications filed by former governor of Benue, Samuel Ortom, stopping the Benue Government from probing him.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Governor Hyacient Alia constituted two commissions of inquiry to investigate Mr Ortom.

Irked by the decision to probe him, Mr Ortom sued the Benue government, attorney general, and members of the commission, challenging their competence to check his administration’s finances.

NAN reports that Governor Alia in February 2024 set up two separate panels to probe the management of the state’s finances and assets under the immediate past administration of Mr Ortom.

In his suit, Mr Ortom stated that the state auditor general, who is mandated by the provisions of the 1999 Constitution, had already audited the state’s accounts.

He said the period (2015-2023) under review was audited and the report submitted to the Benue State House of Assembly by the auditor general was accordingly acted upon as required by the provisions of the 1999 Constitution.

Mr Ortom also argued that the same issues were before the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), so it was wrong to set up another probe panel to investigate the finances of Benue State within the same period as it would amount to a double investigation of the same issues by two different bodies.

Delivering a ruling, Justice Tertsea Asue dismissed the two originating motions and an application for extension of time instituted by counsel to Mr Ortom, Maduabuchi Uba, for lack of merit.

Mr Asue held that the applicant’s case was statute-barred, adding that the applicant also failed to seek leave of court before filing the originating motion which seeks to bring his suit before the court.

The judge held that there was nothing in the Public Officers Protection Law or the rules of court that provided for an extension of time to file an action out of time.

He said both actions did not follow the required due process of law.

He said Governor Alia signed the gazette and constituted a commission of inquiry on 27 February; however, Mr Ortom filed his case on 31 May, which was clearly out of time.

He said the applicant by his showing showed that he considered that he filed his case out of time, hence the motion for a request for extension time to file the notice on the motion.

He said the Public Officers Protection Law and court rules do not allow for an extension of time on originating summons.

In his arguments, the third respondent, Fidelis Mnyim, who is also the state’s attorney general, said the applicant had no case before the court following the inability to move the motion on notice.

Mr Mnyim said the two applications had yet to be served on him, adding that no suit was before the court and that it should be struck out.

The respondents averred that the court’s rules were meant to be obeyed and cited decisions of the Supreme Court to support their arguments.

He prayed the court to dismiss the applicant’s application for an extension of time to file judicial review as the time could not be extended in the circumstances.