A Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday dismissed the charges filed against the Director of Finance and Accounts in the Federal Ministry of Power, Works and Housing, Mr Ibrahim Tumsah and his brother Tijani.

Tijani, is a member of the Presidential Committee on North-East Initiative.

The Special Presidential Investigation Panel for the Recovery of Public Property charged the Tumsah brothers with two counts of failure to declare  their assets “without reasonable excuse and upon the notice to declare” them before the panel.

The brothers filed the motion challenging the powers of the Special Presidential Investigation Panel for the Recovery of Public Property to prosecute them.

The trial judge, Justice Edward Ekwo, in his ruling on Monday, discharged the defendants on the grounds that the panel lacked the powers to prosecute or to initiate criminal proceedings against any Nigerian.

Justice Ekwo held that the function of the panel ended with the completion of investigation and that any attempt to file charges on its own was ultra vires, null and void.

The judge said this was because the constitution did not empower the panel to file charges against anyone.

The defendants had in their motion seeking a dismissal of the charges, relied on Section 4(4) of Recovery of Public Property Special Provisions Act to urge the court to decline adjudicating on the matter.

Counsel to the brothers, Mr Abdul Mohammed, insisted that the presidential panel had no prosecutorial powers, adding that the section provided for acts that could be carried out by the panel.

He said that a full panel of the Court of Appeal, had in a judgement delivered on Nov. 5, 2018, barred the presidential panel from filing any charge in court against any person because it lacked the powers to do so.

Counsel to the panel, Mr Celsus Ukpong, had however, argued that the Court of Appeal judgement was not applicable in the instant case.

He posited that under Section 3(3) of the Recovery of Public Property Special Provisions Act, the President had the power to set up a probe panel, and that the panel could sue on behalf of the president.

Ukpong further argued that Section 4(4) of the Act, which the counsel referred to, “mainly talked about suspects who had received and completed their asset declaration forms.

“But where a person neglected and refused to declare the person’s assets that constitute a criminal act, liable to prosecution by a lawyer on behalf of Mr President.”

The judge discountenanced the submissions of the prosecution saying that the lower court must abide by the decision of the Court of Appeal.

He added that if the prosecutor wanted to challenge the decision, he should approach the Supreme Court not the Federal High Court.