•     Case file forwarded to AGF for prosecution

Tobi Soniyi in Abuja

The Department of State Security Service friday moved to restore government’s battered image in efforts to prosecute Aminu Sadiq Ogwuche, the suspected masterminded of the Nyanyan Motor Park bomb blast by informing a Federal High Court in Abuja that the office of the Attorney General of the Federation was almost set to commence prosecution of the suspect.

The court had last week struck out a two- count charge which the police filed against Ogwuche for lack of diligent prosecution.
But the DSS told the court that it had concluded investigation into the allegation that Ogwuche masterminded the bomb blast in Nyanyan Motor Park which resulted in the death of about 75 people and hundred others wounded and that the case file had been forwarded to the Attorney General of the Federation for prosecution.

Counsel to the security organisation, Mr. Cliff Osagie disclosed this before Justice Adeniyi Ademola .
Osagie was responding to a suit filed by Ogwuche for an order of court releasing him having been held beyond the limit of days allowed by the constitution to hold a suspect.

Following that, Ogwuche through his counsel, Ahmed Raji SAN approached the court challenging his continuous detention, claiming that it was a breach of Section 35(4) of the Constitution.

Section 35 (4) is to the effect that no accused person should be detained beyond 20 days.
Responding, Osagie contended that SSS did not breach any law by detaining Ogwuche for this long.

He premised his submission on the provision of Section 27 of the Terrorism Prevention Act (TPA) which provides that an accused on suspicion of having committed a capital offence can be detained for 90 days which can be renewed on expiration.
He added that DSS had earlier obtained a remand order from a chief magistrate court in Kaduna and the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja.

But Raji countered the argument saying that Section 27 of the TPA be declared unconstitutional because it apparently contradicted section 35(4) of the Constitution.

At this point, the trial judge invited the Attorney General of the Federation or any of his officers to come and address the court on the constitutionality of section 27 of the Terrorism Prevention Act 2013 vis a vis section 35 (4) and (7) of the 1999 constitution.
The court consequently fixed December 17 for continuation of hearing.

Osagie had urged the court to discountenance the argument that section 27 of the TPA be struck out.
According to him, the argument was made in error adding that the applicant was arrested and detained in connection with a capital offence.

He argued that the applicant was in lawful custody adding that investigation had been concluded and that the case file had been forwarded to the AGF for prosecution.

He therefore urged the court to dismiss Ogwuche's suit for lacking in merit. He described the suit as frivolous and abuse of court process.
Ogwuche had brought an application pursuant to Order 2, Rule (1),(2),(3) of the Fundamental Enforcement Procedure rule and Sections 34,35,36,37 and 42 of the 1999 Constitution seeking for the enforcement of his fundamental human right.


Joined as defendants are the SSS and the Attorney General of the Federation. But, the court struck out AGF's name, on the request of the applicant.

Arguing his application, Raji noted that it was based on the request of the Federal Government that the Interpol placed a red alert on the applicant contrary to the impression that it was the Interpol that on its own placed the red alert.

He further drew the attention of the court to the fact that the charge on which Ogwuche was arres  ted and detained had been struck out by the court for lack diligent prosecution.

He added that the charge was the foundation of the extradition order which led to the arrest of the applicant.

Raji further noted that it was assumed that the state had concluded all its investigations before requesting for the extradition order.

He however contended that further detention of the complainant in the SSS custody without arraignment was illegal and pre-judicial.

He contended that the ex parte order obtained by the SSS to detain the applicant for 90 days was a miscarriage of justice.
He also contended that Section 27 of the Terrorism Prevention Act could not override the provisions Section 35 of the Constitution which preserved the right to liberty of every citizen.

He however urged the court to compel the SSS to release the complainant conditionally or unconditionally, admit him to administrative bail or arraign him within 48 hours of the judgement.
He also sought for the sum of N100 million damages.


Source: ThisDay