The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission has deepened the investigation of a former Governor of Rivers State, Peter Odili, over alleged fraud to the tune of N100bn even as the Nigeria Immigration Service has continued to hold on to the former governor’s passport on the instruction of the EFCC.
Odili, who is the husband of the second most senior justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Mary Odili, had at the tail end of his administration in 2007 obtained a perpetual injunction barring the Federal Government and its agencies from probing, arresting or prosecuting him.
In 2020, he approached a Federal High Court again to get another injunction to stop an impending probe. In September, the former governor sued NIS for seizing his passport at the airport.
In its response, however, the NIS said it was the EFCC that asked it to seize the passport as part of a probe.
But Justice Inyang Ekwo ordered the service to release the passport to Odili immediately, stating that until the perpetual injunction had been vacated, withholding Odili’s passport would amount to a breach of his fundamental human rights.
Last week, however, the NIS informed the court that it would be appealing the ruling and hence could not return Odili’s passport just yet.
The NIS based its appeal on three grounds, one of which was that should Odili’s passport be returned to him, it could undermine the appeal.
“The execution of the judgment would foist upon the Court of Appeal a fait accompli and render the appeal nugatory in the event that the appeal succeeds,” it argued.
Justice Ekwo subsequently directed that Odilli’s passport be handed over to the court and adjourned the matter till December 13, 2021.
Although the NIS claims that it is holding Odili’s passport based on a request by the EFCC, the anti-graft agency has refused to say anything on the matter.
The EFCC had last year commenced a probe into how Odili allegedly diverted N100bn while he was governor between 1999 and 2007.
When contacted, the EFCC Spokesman, Mr. Wilson Uwujaren, refused to comment on the matter because the case is in court.
DISCLAIMER: Comments expressed here do not reflect the opinions of FraudXpose or any employee thereof.