|Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, Suspended CBN Governor|
The new charge, which Mr. Sanusi’s lawyers described as false and baseless, tallies with a similar surreptitious but baseless allegation thrown at the bank chief by a presidential aide. Reno Omokri, the Special Assistant to the President on New Media, had, on February 26, used a pseudonym, Wendell Simlin, to circulate an article that tried to link the recent spike in Boko Haram attack to the suspension of the CBN governor.
During the hearing of the rights’ suit, which continued on Monday, the respondents – the Attorney General of the federation, AGF; the Police; and the SSS – made different claims. The fresh terrorism-related allegation against Mr. Sanusi came from the SSS. The agency said it was investigating Mr. Sanusi for allegedly financing terrorism.
PREMIUM TIMES and a few citizen journalists had exposed how Mr. Omokri, using a non-existent alias, Wendell Simlin, created a document linking Mr. Sanusi with financing the terrorist Boko Haram group.
The document was later shown to have been created by Mr. Omokri, with several Nigerians calling for his sack. The presidency has kept mum since the scandal was exposed.
On Monday, however, Mr. Sanusi’s counsel, Kola Awodehin, accused the SSS of falsehood in its new claim against the bank chief, saying the agency had no shred of evidence.
Mr. Ajogwu argued that the provisions of Section 254 (c) 1 (d) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) ousted the court’s jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
He noted that the case before the court borders on the applicant’s employment, saying that labour -related cases are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court, NIC.
“Section 254 (c) 1 (d) of the Constitution vests exclusive jurisdiction on the National Industrial Court, with respect to civil causes or matters touching on employment, labour or industrial relations.
He argued that Mr. Sanusi was being investigated based on the FRCN’s claims. He said the suspended bank chief was being investigated in accordance with the provisions of the law, which the respondents which the respondents had a statutory duty to perform.
“The allegation against the applicant as to funding of terrorism is an afterthought by the respondents which is not backed by facts, as there is no reasonable suspicion that the applicant committed any crime,” he said. He urged the court to dismiss the preliminary objection and uphold the case of the applicant.