BY SAM ALFAN .
Asset Recovery Agency (ARA) has signaled its intention to appeal a ruling that directed any civil liabilities that may arise from the withdrawal of a petition it has filed against a Nigerian payment solution firm be borne by its chief executive officer.
While allowing the withdrawal of the petition it had filed against Flutterwave Payment Technologies, Hupesi solution and Adguru Technologies ltd, High Court judge Nixon Sifuna said that any civil or tortious liability that may arise as consequence of termination of the case, shall be borne by the Agency Director Brigadier Alice Mate and the investigating officer Corporal Isaac Nakitare.
The agency says in the notice it will appeal partially in respect to the directive by the court.
The judge made the decision stating that it was because of the negligent, reckless, careless, rash and parody manner in which this case was investigated and this suit instituted and driven.
The Judge said the case was conducted in a ‘Simon Makonde style’, “where today the suit is filed, tomorrow it is alive, and the next day it has been suffocated to death by its own initiator- the Agency”.
The judge held that with the ‘surreptitious withdrawals and terminations’, thes country should consider mounting periodic lifestyle audits and integrity tests for its Investigators and Prosecutors.
“This will not only ensure integrity and accountability, but will also restore public confidence in such institutions and agencies. Given the critical and delicate nature of anti-corruption cases for instance, there should be no room for deal-cutting, blackmail, or witch-hunt. As I lift off my pen, may this suit now rest in peace,” he said in his ruling.
Mate disclosed that the suit was filed on 12th November 2022, while the final investigation report was completed and submitted to her much later.
She explained that Nakitare had satisfactorily explained to her the source and legitimacy of the funds and she was satisfied that the funds were not proceeds of crime as was initially suspected by the Agency.
The director indicated that at the time the Agency filed the forfeiture proceedings, the investigations were still ongoing.
The judge, however, was of the view that the disclosure revealed that the investigations were shoddy and parody.
“To such investigators and prosecutors, I have in my recent decisions firmly held and still do. That commencing proceedings without having completed investigations is not only inappropriate (especially such serious proceedings), but also negligent, reckless and absurd,” said the judge.
