By Nkechi Eze
The Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a suit filed by Dr. Fanen Ade, who sought an order of mandamus to compel key federal investigative agencies to probe a public-private housing partnership involving the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) and ENL Consortium Limited.
Justice M.O. Liman, who presided over the case, ruled that the conditions necessary for granting such an order were not met and therefore dismissed the case in its entirety. The Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) disclosed the court’s decision in a statement signed by its spokesperson, Demola Bakare.
According to the statement, Dr. Ade had approached the court seeking to compel the ICPC, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), and the Inspector-General of Police (the 5th to 7th respondents) to investigate the FHA/ENL Paradise Hills Estate project in Abuja, developed under a public-private partnership between the FHA and ENL Consortium Limited. He also demanded exemplary and aggravated damages of ₦1,000,000 against the 1st to 4th respondents namely the Federal Housing Authority, ENL Construction Limited, Princess Vicky Haastrup, and Mbaka Agwu over an alleged unlawful denial of access to public information under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, 2011.
Dr. Ade argued that his right to information, as provided under Sections 1(1), 4, and 7(4) of the FOI Act, had been violated.
However, in his ruling, Justice Liman stated that the extraordinary remedy of mandamus cannot be granted in situations where public authorities have discretion, or where alternative legal remedies are available, even if they are less convenient or effective. He further noted that the applicant’s delay in bringing the application was also a disqualifying factor.
Regarding the claims against the first four respondents, the court held that the information requested by Dr. Ade was of a private nature and thus exempt under the FOI Act. “The principle of the order of mandamus cannot apply where there is discretion to act, or where there exists an alternative specific legal remedy albeit less convenient, beneficial, or effective. It also cannot be granted where the applicant has delayed unduly before bringing the application,” Justice Liman ruled.
On the demand for a court order against the ICPC, EFCC, and the Inspector-General of Police, the judge ruled that Dr. Ade had not met the necessary legal threshold. “The order of mandamus against the 5th to 7th respondents is also unavailable for the simple reason that the applicant did not first make any direct demand on these respondents to perform a specific public duty. Consequently, the necessary condition precedent for invoking the jurisdiction of the court was not fulfilled,” the judge said.
Justice Liman emphasized that courts are generally not empowered to issue directives concerning criminal investigations, given their broad and flexible nature. “Criminal investigations are inherently broad in scope and method, and the court is not in a position to issue an order it cannot effectively enforce,” he stated.
“In the circumstances, the issues formulated are resolved against the applicant. As a result, this suit fails and is hereby dismissed,” the judge concluded.
