Bulkachuwa In Serious Trouble As Court Dismisses Suit Seeking To Stop ICPC, SSS, From Investigating Him (DETAILS)

Bulkachuwa In Serious Trouble As Court Dismisses Suit Seeking To Stop ICPC, SSS, From Investigating Him (DETAILS)

A Federal High Court in Abuja has, on Tuesday, rejected the suit filed by Senator Adamu Bulkachuwa in an attempt to prevent the ICPC from investigating him over comments he made during the valedictory session of the 9th National Assembly.

Justice Inyang Ekwo, in his judgment, stated that the suit lacked merit and should be dismissed. The judge emphasized that Bulkachuwa, being a legislator, should comprehend the implications of his statement made on the Senate floor. He clarified that the legislative immunity the plaintiff claimed did not apply in this case.

Read Also After Failing To Prove How He Won The Presidential Election At Tribunal, SAN Reveals How Peter Obi Won Ahead Of Supreme Court Appeal

Justice Ekwo further explained, “It is the duty of every law-abiding citizen to assist and cooperate with law enforcement agencies in their quest to carry out their statutory function. It is only where a law enforcement agency breaches the fundamental right of a citizen in the process of carrying out their statutory function, then a cause of action could be said to have arisen.”

Bulkachuwa had brought the suit against the Attorney-General of the Federation, the NASS clerk, State Security Service, ICPC, and the Nigeria Police Force. Among his requests was a declaration that he is covered by parliamentary immunity and freedom of speech.

The judge ruled that the statement made by Bulkachuwa on the Senate floor in June was not protected by Section 39(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and impart information. The judge concluded that the words spoken by the plaintiff amounted to a confession of an act prohibited by law.

In essence, the judge held that when a person uses their right to express themselves freely to disclose actions that the law criminalizes, they inadvertently invite law enforcement agencies to question them. This, the plaintiff did in this case, making Section 39(1) of the 1999 Constitution inapplicable to cover such statements.