Justice Obiora Egwuatu of a Federal High Court in Abuja has adjourned till June 19, for judgment in a suit seeking the sack of Mr Ola Olukoyede as the Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission ( EFCC).

The judge fixed the date for judgment after lawyers representing parties adopted and argued their briefs of arguments for and against the suit.

An Abuja-based legal practitioner, Mr Victor Opatola, had last year dragged President Bola Tinubu to court, over the appointment of Olukoyede.

Opatola, in the suit filed at the Federal High Court, Abuja, is specifically challenging the validity of his appointment on the grounds that he did not meet the years of service required by law for the office of chairman of the anti-graft agency.

The President of Nigeria, National Assembly, Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Olukoyede are first to fourth respondents respectively, in the suit marked: HC/ABJ/CS/1403/2023.

Adopting his brief on Thursday, Opatola urged the court to discountenance and dismiss the objections and prayers of the defendants and grant the reliefs sought in the suit.

However, the respondents argued otherwise, praying the court to dismiss the suit for lacking in merit.

Olukoyede, who was represented by Olumide Fusika (SAN, challenged the legal authority of the plaintiff to institute the suit in the first place.

Besides, Olukoyede claimed that he is eminently qualified to occupy the office of EFCC Chairman, having served as Secretary of the Commission, a grade Level 17 position, which is higher than the rank of an Assistant Commissioner of Police, a grade Level 14 position.

He accordingly asked the court to dismiss the suit.

After listening to all parties in the suit, Justice Egwuatu subsequently adjourned to June 19 for judgment.

Amongst the issues Opatola raised for determination are: Whether by the true construction and interpretation of Section 2 (1) (a) of the EFCC Act 2004, Olukoyede, who has not fulfilled the conditions of the Act can be validly appointed as EFCC chairman.

He also asked the court to determine whether by the true construction and interpretation of Section 2(1)(a) of the EFCC Act 2004, the person appointed to the office of the chairman of the EFCC can be said to be above the rank of assistant commissioner of police or its equivalent.

“Whether by the true construction and interpretation of Section 2(1)(a) (iii) of the EFCC Act 2004, the interpretation of subsection (iii) should be read disjunctively of subsection (ii) of the act in a manner that Olukoyede, who was appointed to the office of the chairman of EFCC can be said to have 15 Years of cognate experience in any field outside the government security or law enforcement agency.

“Whether by the true construction and interpretation of Section 2(1)(a) (ii)(iii) of the EFCC Act 2004, the National Assembly can validly confirm the appointment of Olukoyede who has not fulfilled the provisions of the law.”

Opatola also prayed the court to make further declarations upon the determination of the above questions.

“A declaration that pursuant to Section 2(1)(a) (ii)(iii) of the EFCC Act, the appointment of Olukoyede to the office of the EFCC chairman is illegal and void.

“A declaration that pursuant to Section 2(1)(a) (ii)(iii) of the EFCC Act, any confirmation of the 4th defendant’s appointment made by the National Assembly is void and of no legal consequence.”

The counsel also asked the court for an order of perpetual injunction restraining the National Assembly from confirming the appointment of the fourth respondent.

He further prayed the court for an order of perpetual injunction restraining the fourth defendant from holding office as chairman of EFCC.