“Office Not Aware Of Any Ultimatum” — AGF Fagbemi Dismisses HEDA’s 14-Day Demand To Reinstate Kuru Criminal Charges

The Office of the Attorney General of the Federation (OAGF) has said it is not aware of any ultimatum from a group, identified as the Human and Environmental Development Agenda (HEDA Resource Centre).

The group reportedly requested the AGF, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), to return the criminal charge earlier withdrawn against the former Managing Director of the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), Ahmed Kuru.

It was gathered that neither the Office of the AGF not the Director of Public Prosecution of the Federation (DPPF) is aware of such communication from HEDA.

A senior official of the Federal Ministry of Justice (FMJ) told our correspondent in confidence yesterday in Abuja that it was unusual for a group to threaten either the AGF or the ministry for applying the law.

“The Constitution allows the AGF to, in the public interest, enter a nolle prosequi (a formal notice of abandonment by a plaintiff or prosecutor of all or part of a suit or action) in respect of any criminal matter being prosecuted by a federal agency.

“The case in question was initiated by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), irrespective of under what law the charge was filed. Are they saying the EFCC cannot prosecute under states’ criminal laws?

“This group and those behind it are just out to raise unnecessary dust. They should go to court if they feel they have any right to enforce. They should stop acting confused.

“In any case, the AGF has explained his actions. They are at liberty to enforce their so-called ultimatum as it pleases them,” the official said.

Some media platforms recently reported that an individual, identified as Olanrewaju Suraju, claiming to be the HEDA Chairman, wrote a petition to the AGF, purportedly expressing concern over the ministry’s decision to discontinue Kuru’s prosecution, even though it was initiated under the Criminal Law of Lagos State.

HEDA reportedly claimed that the AGF acted outside the scope of his constitutional powers, insisting that Section 174 of the 1999 Constitution only empowers him to discontinue criminal cases arising from Acts of the National Assembly, and not cases instituted under state laws.

HEDA Resource Centre, an anti-corruption and human rights organization, called on the AGF), Prince Lateef to immediately reinstate the criminal charges against Mr. Kuru.

In a petition signed by its Chairman, Mr. Olanrewaju Suraju, and addressed to the AGF, the civil society organisation expressed grave concern over the decision of the Justice Minister to discontinue criminal proceedings against Mr. Kuru, despite the fact that the case was being prosecuted under the Criminal Law of Lagos State.

On August 12, it was reported that Hon. Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Lagos State High Court discharged the defendant following a Notice of Discontinuance filed by the Director of Public Prosecution on behalf of the AGF.

HEDA stressed that the AGF acted outside the scope of his constitutional powers, insisting that Section 174 of the 1999 Constitution only empowers the AGF to discontinue criminal cases arising from Federal Laws Acts of the National Assembly, and not cases instituted under state laws.

Further citing the Supreme Court decision in FRN v. Osahon (2006) 5 NWLR (Pt. 973) 361, the organization reiterated that matters arising from state laws remain the exclusive jurisdiction of the Attorney General of the State, in line with Section 211 of the Constitution. The group further referenced State v. Ilori (1983) 1 SCNLR 94 to reinforce its argument.

HEDA said: “Criminal defence is an opportunity for the accused to clear his name, not a political shield from justice. Allowing the case to proceed is in the best interest of justice, particularly as Mr. Kuru’s co-defendant has already admitted guilt through a plea bargain and forfeited proceeds of the crime to the EFCC.”

The organisation, therefore, demanded the immediate reinstatement of charges against Mr. Kuru and other defendants.

It warned that failure by the AGF to act within 14 days would compel HEDA to petition the Nigerian Bar Association’s Disciplinary Committee for abuse of office and explore other local and international legal actions.

Speaking in Uyo, the Akwa Ibom State capital, last Friday, Fagbemi explained that some high-profile cases were recently withdrawn because there was no evidence to support them.

The AGF particularly cited the cases involving Honeywell Group Chairman, Dr. Oba Otudeko, and the former AMCON boss (Kuru).

He said: “In the case of Ahmed Kuru, what happened was that he was not connected; there was nothing to try him for.

“What was involved was an investment in the name of AMCON, in the sum of about, I think, N20 million. Both the principal and the interest were recovered by the EFCC. It was not in any individual’s name. So, what offence has been committed?”

The minister also clarified that the case against Otudeko was withdrawn because the complainants themselves had withdrawn their petition.

According to him, it would have been a waste of the government’s resources to pursue a case that no longer had a valid complaint.

Fagbemi absolved President Bola Ahmed Tinubu of any interference in high-profile criminal cases, stressing that he (the AGF) was under no pressure from the President or anyone else.

The minister said criminal cases are decided strictly on merit.

He denied any interference in the operations of the EFCC and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), saying both agencies remain independent and constitutionally empowered to carry out their mandates.

“We don’t interfere in their investigations. When they finish with their investigations, we look at the report and take appropriate action. So, it is at the stage of investigation that a great deal of issues will come in.

“What you do is leave them because they are best suited and well organised to handle investigations regarding an allegation or commission of a crime.

“When they are done with their investigations, you take it up from there and determine whether there are gaps or further issues to be examined. If not, you make a decision based on the report presented before you.

“So, we give them their liberty, and the Constitution also guarantees it,” Fagbemi said.