The Nigerian society is plagued by several maladies. Previously, accounts of citizens were frozen by letters or bankers’ orders, a document issued by magistrates that has been found to be illegal, being just permission to inspect the accounts of suspects and not one to freeze. This was enunciated in the celebrated case of GTB PLC v Adedamola (2019) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1664), 30 at 45.
The case also stated that while freezing an account with an Ex Parte Order, the filing of the Ex Parte must be done alongside that of a motion on notice, which must be served on the bank customer along with the order freezing the account. This is to allow the customer to be afforded fair hearing.
The police, the EFCC, and other security agencies sometimes get court orders to freeze accounts of citizens without giving them an opportunity to be heard. Their reason sometimes is that the referenced payments came from suspicious sources, as if mere business transactions between citizens are a crime. Mere payments of money into accounts of individuals are not proof of money laundering or the alleged plot to destabilize Nigeria.
In order to freeze an account based on a suspicious transaction, there must be proof of an alleged infraction. The freezing of accounts has led to loss of jobs owing to comatose businesses precipitated by frozen accounts. No serious investor will invest in an economy where there is uncertainty about the safety of savings or investments.
The banks themselves are happy when accounts are frozen and the same is protracted, as it allows them to deal and trade with the money without any interest or return on investment. A frozen account is like a fixed deposit forcefully fixed by the Nigerian system without any return on investment.
There are criminal dimensions, especially when the freezing was done without due process. The sudden freezing of accounts by security agencies has killed would-be investors’ interest in Nigeria. It presents Nigeria as a country where investments are not safe.
How can international investors bring their money to a country where they are not sure the government will wake up one morning, walk up to a court, without the owner of the money being given an opportunity to be heard, and the court grants an order freezing the account in this 21st century? This sounds ludicrous!
Section 1(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended), provides that this Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on the authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
This means that sections of the CBN Act and sections of the EFCC Act, respectively, from where the CBN and the EFCC purportedly derived their powers to clamp down on the finances of citizens without giving them fair hearing as guaranteed in Section 36 (1)(3)(6) of the Constitution, are null and void to the extent of their inconsistencies with the Constitution.
The use of an Ex Parte Order to freeze the accounts of freeborns of this country is against the principle of fair hearing as guaranteed by the Constitution. Citizens have a right to be heard before any such freezing of accounts can occur.
Section 36(1) of the Constitution boldly asserts that in the determination of his civil rights and duties, including any question or decision by or against any government or authority, a person shall be eligible to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court or other tribunal established by law.
The principle of fair hearing is one of the twin pillars of the principle of natural justice. The Court of Appeal of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, in the watershed case of Uzowolu (Oduah) & Ors. v. Akpor & Ors. (2014) LCN/6777 (CA), succinctly stated that a party’s right to fair hearing is of fundamental and constitutional significance and cannot be compromised or whittled down by the court for whatever reason.
I call for the immediate defreezing of those accounts and payment of compensation to the victims. Our courts should stop giving orders that are against our Constitution. The courts are protectors of liberties, not an official arm that rubber-stamps every action of government, some of which are not in conformity with our laws.
It is in the interest of government to adhere more to the rule of law to strengthen the fabric of our legal regime. This is because government exists only where there is a peaceful society.
Hon. Justice Chukwudifu Oputa (JSC), as he then was, expounded on the indispensability of adhering to the rule of law, stating that fishes live in water in obedience to aquatic laws, just as humans stay within the ambits of the rule of law in obedience to natural law. Any society that does not exist under the ambits of the rule of law will surely die.
• Douglas Ogbankwa Esq., (douglasogbankwa@gmail.com), the immediate past Director of Strategic Communications of the African Bar Association (AfBA) is the Convener of the Vanguard for the Independence of the Judiciary and the Security Situation Room.
