The Attorney General of the federation, Abubakar Malami, SAN, has divulged the reasons behind FG’s refusal to unfreeze the bank accounts linked to 20 #EndSARS demonstrator as against court order.
On Wednesday, the federal high court in Abuja had ordered the CBN to unfreeze the account of the protesters targeted by the apex bank following the anti-police brutality demonstration.
Godwin Emefiele, governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), has in October 2020 directed banks to place a Post-No-Debit order on the accounts of 20 persons linked to the #EndSARS campaign.
The order which has now exceeded the stipulated 90 days was to enable the CBN to probe the alleged crime against the defendants
The judge, Justice Mohammed Ahmed had given the order to unfreeze the accounts after the legal teams of both the CBN and the 20 defendants decided to end the case on Wednesday.
However, Malami while speaking on Sunrise Daily, a Channels TV programme said it is within the constitutional rights of the government to give further consideration or exercise the right to appeal against the order.
He stated that the CBN is yet to unfreeze the accounts because it is still weighing options as allowed by the law on such matters.
“We need to take in a lot of factors with particular reference to the compliance with the court order and within the context of striking a balance, the options that are available are multiple.
“One, the consideration of or a possibility of wholehearted compliance with the court order; that is, comprehensive, unconditional compliance with the order relating with the unfreezing of the #EndSARS account.
“But, that does not take away the right of government to give a further consideration when the need arises. A consideration for example, of excising the right of appeal against the order, of excising a right of appeal against the order if the need arises coupled with the right of stay of execution of the order or perhaps, application of variations of order among others.
“While the government has chosen to exercise those rights and indeed an appeal of variation of the court order or an appeal for setting aside the order or perhaps stay of execution of the order, you cannot within the context of the rule law adjudge the government as operating in breach of the order,” Malami said.
“It all depends on, for example, where parties unilaterally settle for arrangement or the order is a product of settlement arrangement, I think the possibility of considering options associated with appeal of variation of the order or setting aside the court order may not necessarily come into play.
“But where it indeed is product of contentions between the party ‘A’ saying, ‘this is the way it is’, and the other party saying no, ‘this is the way it is’, the court will now decide to make a ruling one way or the other. So, the right of appeal, right of application to set aside the court order or perhaps, maybe a staying of execution of the order may come into play.
“It all depends on the prevailing circumstances. It is the prevailing circumstances that determine what decisions, what provision, what direction the party involved in the suit or the party affected by the order will consider as the next line of action to take.”
- Breaking: Ohanaeze President General, George Obiozor, confirmed dead - December 28, 2022
- US to support NDLEA on improved intelligence gathering capacity - December 27, 2022
- Why diversified HIV/AIDS prevention tools matter for women - December 26, 2022
