He highlighted the absence of a formal invitation in Bello’s case. Furthermore, he noted that the EFCC did not dispatch operatives to Bello’s village to effect an arrest after he demanded to see the invitation. He explained how the former governor subsequently sought legal recourse, invoking Section 461 to protect his rights. He noted how Bello obtained a court order, which the EFCC appealed. However, while the appeal was pending, he noted that the EFCC filed charges in a federal high court and requested a warrant of arrest. He stated that the court granting the arrest warrant might not have been aware of the ongoing appeal.
He said in an interview with Arise TV, ”If you remember that some former governors have accused the former EFCC chairman of allegedly demanding money from them. I expected that the EFCC Chairman should have learned from this instead of extending a back-door invitation. The moment the person refuses to appear, you make a formal invitation to that person and documents do not lie.
Now you try to smuggle him [Yahaya Bello] through the backdoor and the man has said show me the invitation. And there is none. And after all of this, you couldn’t even send your operative to the village to go and arrest him. And then the man rushed to court in fulfillment of section 461 to say well, the way things are going, I need to protect my right. He got an order and you appealed the order. While the appeal is pending, you now go to another court and file a charge in a federal high court and then you ask for a warrant of arrest. What that might likely mean is that the court where you obtained the warrant of arrest was not aware of the pending court of appeal suit between you and the applicant.”CONTINUE FULL READING>>>>>
