Justice Nnamdi Dimgba of the Federal High Court, Abuja Monday refused to quash the damaging report issued by the House of Representatives on its investigation of the controversial Centenary City project promoted under the administration of Goodluck Jonathan.
The report had indicted former Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), Anyim Pius Anyim and other major actors in the handling of the project.
In a judgment yesterday, Justice Dimgba dismissed the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/258/2017, filed in the name of centenary City Plc,seeking among others, the voiding of the report.
Justice Dimgba noted that the allegations of bias and bad faith raised against Herman Hembe, who head the House of Reps’ committee that investigated allegation of corruption in the project, was insufficient to move the court to quash the report.
The plaintiff had, in the suit filed on March 29 this year, claimed among others, that Hembe had sought a private meetings with the plaintiff prior to the investigation (public hearing) with the intention of being induced.
It equally claimed that its representatives at the public hearing demanded Hembe’s disqualification from the committee, but that its lawyers and representatives later walked out of the proceedings when Hembe failed to step down.
The plaintiff, which complained of being denied fair hearing, said the committee proceeded with the public hearing, without its participation, and issued a majority report, but with a member dissenting, a report the entire House of Reps later adopted.
In his judgement, Justice Dimgba said the suit was one that was built on Section 36(1) of the Constitution, which “provisions are only applicable, in the determination of the civil rights and obligations of persons before a court or other judicial tribunal established by law”.
The judge observed that “the majority report, adopted by the whole House made adverse findings and recommendations on the project”.
He further observed that the plaintiff thought that the House of Reps’ perception of the project, its adverse conclusions and recommendations, contained in its report, were not accidental, but orchestrated by the second defendant (Hembe).
The judge also noted that the plaintiff, in filing the suit, thought that Hembe had “some legacy hatred against the chief promoter of the project, former Senate President and Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Senator Pius Anyim”.
Justice Dimgba said granting the plaintiff’s prayers and quashing such a report issued and ratified by another arm of government could endanger the stability of the political system in terms of the relations among independent and equal arms of government.
The judge said it was necessary for the court “to tread very carefully here so as not to breed hostility among separate organs of government that should accord each other reciprocal respect”.
Justice Dimgba said: “In all honesty, upon a full and dispassionate appraisal of what has been placed before me, I do not believe that a sufficient case has been made warranting the intervention of the Court in the manner prayed for in the suit.
“First, this suit has been built on Section 36(1) of the Constitution. A review of the said section shows that the provisions are only applicable, ‘in the determination of the civil rights and obligations’ of persons ‘before a Court or other judicial tribunal established by law.
“I do not agree that the defendants are acting as court or tribunal or performing a quasi-judicial function. I do not even agree that the defendants are acting in administrative capacity.
“All the conditions enumerated in Section 36 must co-exist in a given situation for the provisions to enjoy any relevance,” the judge said.
He refused the plaintiff’s argument that the House of Reps’ report must be voided because the Senate had earlier conducted similar investigation and given Anyim and others pass mark.
The judge added: “I state for the avoidance of any doubt, that the House of Representatives’ investigation of the Centenary City project, which the Senate has justified, might appear mischievous or driven by questionable motives or goals, as alleged, but the investigation itself is not illegal, since the Senate’s findings are not binding on the House of Representatives, being independent legislative facilities established by the Constitution.”
The judge said the plaintiff failed to provide the court with relevant materials to prove that the House of Representatives’ committee was compromised by Hembe’s personal interest.
Justice Dimgba said: “The evidence clearly shows that the plaintiff was invited to the public hearing, as were other relevant stakeholders.
“The right to be heard, simply means the opportunity to be heard, not that one must be heard definitively even when you spurn the opportunity,” he said.
He noted that, with questions of credibility surrounding the report, especially as captured by the minority report, ignored by the House of Reps, the plaintiff, rather than rushing to court, ought to have impressed it on the government agencies, to which the report was sent, not to implement it.
