By Ameh Ejekwonyilo
Abuja
A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja yesterday struck out a suit filed by the Federal Government against the alleged mastermind of the April 14, bomb explosion that killed over 75 people at a bus station in Nyanya, Abuja, Aminu Sadiq Ogwuche, for “want of diligent prosecution.”
The federal government had through the Inspector General of Police filed a criminal charge against Ogwuche, but could not proceed with the prosecution due to bickering between the police and the Department of State Security (DSS).
At the resumed hearing of the matter yesterday, the trial judge, Justice Ademola Adeniyi struck out the suit due to the absence of the IGP and the prosecution counsel.
Justice Ademola said: “This criminal charge is hereby struck out for want of diligent prosecution by the complainant, Inspector General of Police and his prosecutor.”
In a related development, Justice Ademola yesterday granted the oral application sought by Ogwuche’s counsel, Mr. Ahmed Raji (SAN) for family members to have access to the alleged bomber.
The court ordered that three lawyers from Ahmed Raji’s chambers and two of Ogwuche’s family members be allowed access to the suspect who is being by the SSS.
Following the no objection submission by the SSS counsel, Clifford Osagie and the AGF’s counsel Mr. Taiwo Abidogun, Justice Ademola said: “Three lawyers from the complainant’s counsel as well as the complainant’s wife and another family member be given access to the applicant.
Applicant be given medical care in the respondent’s custody and referred to the National Hospital, Abuja if need be,” Ademola said.
He adjourned the matter till December 5 for hearing of the originating motion exparte.
You would recall that Counsel to the suspect, Ahmed Raji (SAN) , in an application for the enforcement of Ogwuche’s fundamental human rights, had asked the court to admit Ogwuche to bail.
He alleged that the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and the DSS who are respondents in the matter, were breaching the fundamental rights of the applicant by holding him endlessly against the provision of the law.
Raji had argued that when a suspect is arrested by security agents, (the respondents), the suspect should be charged before a competent court within the time allowed by law and should be allowed access to his family and lawyers.
He argued that the applicant is presumed innocent and that his fundamental right to liberty should not be infringed upon.
In an affidavit in support of the application, Raji averred that the 29-year-old applicant was trying to further his education, and did not know anything about the offences preferred against him.
He said the respondents should release the applicant if nothing was found against him.
