Lawyer to Bolatito Oduala and 18 other #EndSARS protesters, Femi Falana, SAN, told the Federal High Court, Abuja, that the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) supposedly ordered the freezing of bank accounts related to certain promoters of the #EndSARS protests fourteen days before getting a court order.

Falana disclosed to Justice Ahmed Mohammed, on Wednesday, while contending a movement he petitioned for his clients, where he asked the court to abandon the order ex-pare conceded on Nov. 4, freezing the accounts of 20 affirmed #EndSARS promoters.

“We made a genuine charge that the order was gotten on Nov. 4 to conceal the hotel to self-improvement by the offended party by freezing our customers’ accounts from Oct. 15, fourteen days before the order,” Falana said.

He expressed that despite the fact that the CBN Governor, Godwin Emefiele, endeavored to deny the claim, he had recorded narrative proof of printouts of instant message trades between his customers and their banks.

“It is an intense claim. On the off chance that your lordship realized that they had frozen the accounts under the steady gaze of moving toward the court, your lordship would not have practiced tact in support of themselves.

“We supplicate the court to abandon the order ex-parte with the goal that the litigant, who has submitted no offense at all to have their privileges reestablished.

“There is no sign that any of the respondents occupied with the commission of any offense.

“There is no scintilla of proof introduced under the steady gaze of this court by the offended party such that criminal offense is being explored against the litigants,” Falana added.

The lawyer blamed the CBN lead representative’s dependence on the Terrorism Act to get the order, contending that “under Section 40 of the Act, the CBN isn’t an arraigning organization.

“All the organizations that can summon the law are recorded.”

He contended that the CBN was just marking each Nigerian as a psychological oppressor in the event that one chose to protest.

“Serene demonstrators are presently named fear based oppressors,” he said.

Falana contended that demonstration of serene protest and showing couldn’t be considered as fear monger acts under the law, noticing that Section 1(3) of Terrorism Prevention Act had barred exhibit or stoppage of work from psychological oppressor acts, inside the meaning of illegal intimidation.

“Except if it very well may be appealed to the court that the protesters occupied with the annihilation of property, killings, etcetera, yet there is no proof cited by the offended party that the respondents penetrated or submitted the demonstrations set out in the Terrorism Act,” he contended.

Falana likewise blamed the technique embraced by the CBN Governor in getting the order, contending that under Order 26 of the Federal High Court’s Rules, it wasn’t right for the offended party to have quite recently documented an ex-parte movement without going with it with either a movement on notification or starting summons, to empower the respondents to react.

“Area 60 of Bank and other Financial Institution Act (BOFIA) that permits the offended party to move toward the court should be perused with Section 36 of the Constitution that discussions about reasonable hearing.

“No gathering in Nigeria is permitted to move toward the court on ex-parte order and that closes the case,” he stated, adding that no ex-parte order, under the court’s principles, endures over seven days, except if whenever recharged, which the offended party had not applied for.

Falana supplicated the court to clear the order made on Nov. 4 against his clients.

Reacting, the lawyer to the CBN governor Michael Aondoakaa, SAN, encouraged the court to dismiss Falana’s solicitation.

Aondoakaa. said his client acted inside the law by documenting an ex-parte application as needed under Section 60 of BOFIA.

He contended that since the law has given that the CBN could apply for an order ex-parte upon doubt that any financial balance was being utilized for an unlawful reason, it wasn’t right for Falana to anticipate that his customer should act in any case.

Aondoakaa battled that the standard of the court which Falana depended on couldn’t be raised over the arrangement of a law made by the National Assembly.

He blamed the fitness of a portion of the cycles recorded by the litigants, noticing that they contained clashing realities and proof.

He identified a few blunders in dates and encouraged the court to disapprove the records.

Justice Mohammed, in the wake of taking a few contentions from parties, noticed that the time had far spent.

He deferred further continuing on the issue until Dec. 10.

Previous articleReminisce Ft. Adekunle Gold – Toxic
Next articleWole Soyinka Describes 2020 As Nigeria’s Most Challenging Year
Esther is a seasoned writer and broadcast journalist with years of experience in both media, print, and broadcast journalism. A graduate of Sociology/Anthropology with a passion for editing and journalism.

Leave a Reply