President Bola Tinubu has been asked to call the Chairman of Police Service Commission, PSC, Hashimu Salihu Argungu, a retired Deputy Inspector-General of Police, to order over attempt to review a lawful judgement of court.
In a letter dated January 29, signed by a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Terkaa Aondo, SAN, the president was asked to call him to order for allegedly meddling unlawfully into enforcement of judgement of court of competent jurisdiction.
In suit number FCT/HC/CV/330/2018, Alhaji Usman Sarahi, challenged the unlawful and illegal revocation of Plot 1798 Cadastral Zone A2, Wuse District, Abuja, covered by a Certificate of Occupancy, without service of Revocation notice in line with the Land Use Act.
Upon determination of the case, the court delivered its judgment in favour of Alhaji Saraki and nullified the purported revocation
and subsequent reallocation. The court held that the purported Revocation of the claimant’s right of occupancy without service of revocation notice is illegal, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
The judgment was enforced on 19/12/2024 by evicting all the occupants and on 25/12/24, one Alhaji Yahaya Abubakar and his thugs, broke back into the property against the Order of the FCT High Court.
The SAN said, in the petition to the President, “It is pertinent to note that, on the 25/12/2024, one Alhaji Abubakar Yahaya, the brother in-law to a top high ranked official of the Police Service Commission, aided by weapon-wielding thugs, criminally and forcefully broke In and entered into the property in total disrespect to the Order of Court that had evicted them. Following complaint to the Court and the Police, on 14/1/2025, the illegal occupants were evicted from the property, and our client put back in possession.”
Alhaji Yahaya allegedly paid the sum of N700,000.00 to a staff of the Execution unit of the FCT High Court to prevent the Court staff from going back to the property to further evict him and his illegal occupants and thugs.
But Alhaji Yahaya, through his Counsel, Barrister Sani Abass, said the money was paid to the Court staff in error. He said, “That issue has been resolved, the money was sent in error and it has been reversed”.
Alhaji Yahaya approached the court in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/5699/2024, over the enforcement of judgment and secured an injunction to stop further construction work on the property and also petitioned the PSC, following which a panel, chaired by the Chairman of the
Commission, DIG Argungu (rtd) is said to be conducting an investigation into the enforcement of Judgment of a Court of competent jurisdiction over a civil matter.
The senior advocate said in the petition that despite the pendency of the matter before FCT High Court, his client was invited by a letter personally signed by the chairman of the PSC to appear before a panel set up by the PSC chairman over issues relating to the Court judgment and its enforcement which are subject of Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/5699/2024 pending before FCT High Court No. 5, Maitama, presided over by Hon. Justice Mairo Nasir.
According to the senior counsel, when the Panel sat on 27/1/2025, most of the issues raised by the Panel relate to the where-about of the judgment creditor; how the plot was allocated and how the
Judgment was obtained and enforced, which are all matters that have been
decided on merit by a Court of competent jurisdiction in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/330/2018, and which also form the basis of the pending litigation in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/5699/2024.
“All efforts by counsel to make the Chairman appreciate the fact that the investigation over the Plot of land upon which a judgment of court subsists, Is outside the mandate of the Commission, proved abortive. In the course of the sitting on 27/1/2025, in a rather shocking and bizarre twist, the Chairman directed the Panel to pay a visit to the locus in quo for a first hand assessment of the property, and deployed several Police Vehicles and Armoured vehicle, for this purpose.”
A senior official of the PSC, Mr Ikechukwu Ani, said he is not aware of the panel. According to him, ” To the best of my knowledge, I’m not aware of such panel.”
The SAN states that his client feels intimidated by the posture and threats by the Chairman of the PSC, but he is nonetheless, uninterested in any resolution of the matter outside the Court. The SAN concludes that: “It is important to note Sir, that It against the hallowed principle of rule of law, which your administration Is poised to protect, for an appointee of an exalted public office to deliberately interfere in the judicial process and the cause of justice. We pray your Excellency Sir, to use your good offices to call the Chairman of the Police Service Commission to order and to cause him to align himself with the mandate for which the Commission was established.”
