The inspector-general of police (IGP), Usman Baba has been sued over his alleged refusal to prosecute Bola Tinubu, All Progressives Congress (APC) presidential candidate.
The Incorporated Trustees of Center for Reform and Public Advocacy, a civil society organisation (CSO), maee this known in a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1058/2022.
According to the suit filed on July 4, the group alleged that Tinubu lied under oath when he tendered his credentials to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in 1999.
The group said the IGP is empowered by the constitution and police act to probe criminal allegations levelled against anyone.
“An order of mandamus compelling the respondents to comply with sections 31 and 32 of the police act and section 3 of the criminal justice act, 2015 in respect of alleged crime laid out in complaint of the applicant encapsulated in the letter of June 16, 2022 received by the respondents on the same date and titled: Demand for Criminal Prosecution of Senator Bola Ahmed Tinubu under Sections 191, 192 and 463 of the criminal code act, law of the federation of Nigeria, 2004 consequent upon the findings of the Lagos State House of Assembly ad hoc Committee, 1999,” the court document reads.
It said according to section 32(1) of the police act any suspect is meant to be arrested and tried in a court.
A suspect or defendant alleged or charged with committing offence established by an Act of the national assembly or under any other laws shall be arrested, investigated and tried or dealt with according to the provisions of this act, except otherwise provided under this act,” it said.
The CSO said it was compelled to file the suit because two letters it wrote to the IGP where it called for prosecution of Tinubu were allegedly ignored.
In 1999, an ad hoc committee set up by the Lagos state house of assembly to probe Tinubu’s credentials did not find him wanting because his submissions to INEC “were not made for judicial proceedings”.
“[His submissions] were not made for judicial proceedings, there could be no perjury by law,” the committee found at the time.