Anti-Graft War: NFF chieftains to know fate November 5

By Mike Oboh

A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has adjourned the corruption case brought against the leadership of the Nigeria Football Federation by the scrapped Special Presidential Investigative Panel (SPIP) to November 5 to give her verdict on the case.

Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu had on Thursday declared that the case was political and she was not interested in politics and adjourned the case to November 5, 2019, to give the court’s position on the matter.

Although Justice Ojukwu was not happy with the absence of the five NFF executives in court, after being briefed by counsel to the NFF, Barrister Sani Katu, she declared that she saw nothing in the case and that the defendants should have shown up in court.

Barrister Katu informed her Lordship that the President of Federal Republic of Nigeria has terminated and dissolved the SPIP that brought the case before the court and in the absence of the prosecutor, the case file is now with the Attorney-General of the Federation and other files are also in transition.

Following Katu’s statement, Justice Ojukwu stated that if the defendants had appeared in court, and in the absence of the scrapped SPIP, she would have released the defendants. She then adjourned the case to November 5.

Speaking after the adjournment, Barrister Abubakar Musa, Senior State Counsel in the Ministry of Justice said that with the pronouncement that SPIP is no longer functional and disbanded by the President of Federal Republic of Nigeria, every case brought by the SPIP is now under the office of the Attorney General of the Federation.

“According to the instructions of the President of Federal Republic of Nigeria, the AGF is taking over the matter and all the files are supposed to be in transition,” Barrister Musa said.

“The court cannot be blamed. The Attorney General of the Federation is the chief law officer of the state and he is bound to be sure that the Federal Republic of Nigeria obey the court order, but he is not aware of the order and if he is not aware of it, you cannot say he is bound to bring the defendants.”