Monday, October 14, 2019 8:02 pm
Justice Okon Abang of the Abuja Federal High Court on Monday in Abuja ordered one Mr George Uboh , George Uboh Chairman Whistleblowers Network (GUWN) to compensate four respondents with N5,000 each for delay in filing a case before it.
The respondents are; Inspector General of Police, Mohammed Adamu, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Mr Anthony Michael, Governor, Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Dr. Godwin Emefiele and Mr Ned Nwoko.
News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that in an affidavit deposed to by One Dodo Silas, the applicant had alleged that through some credible whistle blowers within the CBN and beyond he was informed of how the 3rd respondent in collusion with the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) oversaw and approved of the pilfering and diversion of state funds worth 2,564,000,000 U.S. dollars.
He stated that the applicant wrote a letter to the 3rd respondent, requesting the remittance of over 2. 5 billion federal government funds missing under his watch to the government TSA.
Justice Abang however, ordered that the compensation be paid to the respondents before Nov. 20, which is the adjourned date.
Counsel to the applicant, Mr Eteowo Ekaette argued that the motion and application filed to the court was to be adopted today (Monday) but because the applicant had been in Kuje prisons, he couldn’t access him to re-swear some of the processes and depose to them.
“This is due to some of the new rules of the court now that they have to see you personally before they accept some of those processes.
“Due to his absence we could not have him appear in court till today when we filed the application since he was just released few days ago at which we had him to come over to depose to those applications.
“All applications would be taken on the adjourned date and all substantives would also be adopted,” he said.
“The 3rd respondent instead of responding cogently to the letter after being served, he wrote a petition to the 1st and 2nd respondents dated May 14, falsely and maliciously alleging that the applicant had defamed his character in writing.
“Apart from the petition aforesaid, the 3rd respondent also offered to testify against the applicant as a witness for the prosecution in this regard,” he said.