The effort by the embattled Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer, Telcom Satellite Television Service (TStv), Dr. Bright Echefu, to stop the Inspector General of Police (IGP) from investigating an alleged N2 billion investment fund diversion brought against him by Former Minister of Special Duties, Kabiru Turaki, has hit a brick wall.
The suit, which was brought before Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, followed an invitation extended to the plaintiff by the Nigerian Police in connection to allegation of “stealing and misappropriation” of the defendant’s N2 billion investment in TStv, which went defunct.
Upon being invited by the police for questioning, Echefu filed the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/234/2024, praying that the IGP and his agents be restrained from conducting investigation into the case.
In the suit, Echefu contended that the ex-Minister’s N2 billion investment was a civil transaction and the police have no power under any known laws to investigate such transactions.
He argued that the police cannot act as debt recovery agent for the normal complainant (Turaki).
In his judgment, Justice Inyang Ekwo held that the suit by Echefu was frivolous and lacking in merit.
Justice Ekwo held that it was wrong of the plaintiff to seek the court’s protection from being investigated over a petition against him on alleged stealing and misappropriation of N2bn investment in TSTV.
The judge was of the view that the allegations against Echefu related to stealing and misappropriating N2bn investment and not debt recovery drive as he erroneously claimed.
He held that the plaintiff failed to establish his claim that the N2b was in relation to civil transaction when the petition before the police alleged stealing and misappropriation of the fund invested in TSTV for its expansion.
Justice Ekwo faulted Echefu argument that the police have no power to investigate such petition against him.
He added that when a petition has the colour of stealing and misappropriating, the police are empowered under Section 4 of Police Act to inquire into such allegations.
The judge said: “The plaintiff (Echefu) has not denied being given the several sums of money by the 4th defendant (Kabiru Turaki) as investment in the companies mentioned in the averments in this case.
” The case made against the plaintiff (Echefu) is that of stealing and misappropriation. For the plaintiff to assert and actually sustain the assertion that this matter is contractual and that police cannot be involved, the onus is on the plaintiff to demonstrate with concrete evidence that there was no stealing and misappropriation.
“This is so because the mere claim that a relationship between the parties was and is contractual in nature is not a magic wand that will indiscriminately shield a person from being investigated on the allegations of criminal act arising from civil transaction”.
“To allow a plaintiff to coast home with the treasures of his loot on the grounds that such was contractual matter, will enhance a judicial victory for the undeserved.
“A citizen who is a victim of any act of crime, has right to make a report of same to the police and in the Nigerian system of administration of justice, when a crime is committed, it is the Nigerian police that moves in to investigate it.
“On the whole, the plaintiff has not given me any cogent ground to interfere in the exercise of the statutory power of the 1st and 2nd defendants (Police) on the petition by the 4th defendant (Turaki) that his investment has been stolen and misappropriated by the plaintiff.
In ruling, the Judge said: “On this ground, I find that this action lacks merit and ought to be dismissed. I therefore make an order dismissing this case on those grounds.”
Listed as defendants in the suit are the Nigeria Police Force, the IGP, the DIG Force Investigation Bureau, Turaki and the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), whose name the judge struck in the earlier part of the judgment as not being a necessary party.
