Hearing on the case involving the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Mohammed Bello Adoke and a former House of Representatives member, Dino Melaye could not go ahead on Thursday owing to late service of court process on the defendants by the counsel to the former.
The AGF had sued Melaye and a group, Anti-Corruption Network (ACN) for N10.2 billion, accusing them of damaging his reputation in a petition to President Goodluck Jonathan.
Adoke was represented by a group of lawyers including five Senior Advocates of Nigeria – Robert Clarke, Bolaji Ayorinde, Ahmed Raji, Babajide Koku and Donald Denigwe.
Defence counsel, Anthony Itedjere, from the firm of Bamidele Aturu and Co, told the court his clients were served the previous day, with copies of Adoke’s “reply on point of law to defendants’ written address filed on September 4, 2013.”
Therefore, he sought for time to examine the documents. In his ruling, Justice Olasumbo Goodluck granted the request for more time and adjourned hearing to December 5, 2013.
In a petition dated April 11, 2013, Melaye and his group had in a petition to President Jonathan detailed incidents of alleged graft and “outrageous use of powers against public interest” by the AGF.
In their defence, Melaye and ACN urged the court to dismiss the suit. They queried the professional competence and integrity of the AGF.
They also raised allegations bothering on corruption and abuse of office, particularly as it relates to Adoke’s alleged role in the controversial Oil Prospecting License (OPL) 245 allocated to Malabu Oil and Gas Limited owned by former Petroleum Minister, Chief Dan Etete.
They accused Adoke of paying lip service to the fight against corruption and plotting to hobble the nation’s anti-corruption agencies – Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) and Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) by allegedly working to “castrate and frustrate them from investigating and prosecuting corruption and other economic and financial crimes in Nigeria.”
The AGF has since dismissed the allegations, describing them as “embarrassing, scandalous, vexatious, disclosing no defence to the action and an abuse of the process of the court.”
The defendants consequently filed a counter-affidavit to Adoke’s response. They justified their allegations of corrupt practices and abuse of office against Adoke.
They stated that their allegations were intended to rebut Adoke’s claim to being a man of integrity.
They argued that the allegations “raise the defence of justification and the roll-up plea to the suit of the plaintiff. The paragraphs contain facts showing why the suit of the plaintiff should be dismissed or not succeed.”
Adoke, in his reply of September 4 prayed the court to discountenance the defendants’ argument and strike out the portion of their defence contain allegations of corruption and abuse of office against him.
