Key Points

• Justice J.K. Omotosho dismissed Paul Afagase Johnson’s lawsuit and ruled that the ICPC has full statutory authority to investigate the alleged N350 million contract scandal.
• The court rejected Johnson’s claim that the police and EFCC had cleared him, finding no evidence that any prior investigation had concluded in his favour.
• The case stems from a petition alleging N350 million was paid to secure a government contract that never materialized, which the DSS later referred to the ICPC.

A Federal High Court has thrown out a lawsuit by a businessman who wanted Nigeria’s anti-corruption agency blocked from investigating him over an alleged N350 million contract deal, ruling that the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission cannot be stopped from doing its job.

Justice J.K. Omotosho, delivering judgment Monday, dismissed the suit filed by Paul Afagase Johnson, who had gone to court seeking a perpetual injunction to prevent the ICPC from inviting or investigating him. The ruling was confirmed in a statement by commission spokesperson Okor Odey.

How the Case Began

The matter traces back to a petition alleging that N350 million was paid in an attempt to secure a contract meant to benefit certain public institutions.

When the contract reportedly failed to come through, the aggrieved contractor filed a complaint with the Department of State Services, which in turn referred the petition to the ICPC.

Johnson pushed back hard. He told the court the dispute was nothing more than a civil and contractual matter between himself, Chief Richard Okozi and Rokozi Investment Limited.

He argued the ICPC had no business inserting itself into what he called a private commercial disagreement, and went further, accusing the commission of trying to use its powers as a debt recovery tool.

He also claimed the agency’s invitation amounted to intimidation, threatened his rights and demanded N500 million in damages.

Court Shuts Down the Argument

Justice Omotosho was not persuaded. The judge held that the ICPC is legally empowered to investigate petitions alleging corruption, especially where government ministries, departments and agencies are involved in the underlying transaction.

The contract at the center of the dispute allegedly touched government MDAs, which brought the matter squarely within the commission’s mandate.

“Courts are generally reluctant to restrain law enforcement agencies from carrying out investigations where allegations of criminal conduct have been raised,” the judge said.

He was direct about what the court would and would not do. “The court would not serve as a shield for individuals seeking to evade lawful investigation,” Omotosho held.

Claim of Prior Clearance Collapses

Johnson also told the court he had already been invited by both the Nigeria Police Force and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission over the same matter and cleared of any wrongdoing. The court examined what was actually presented and found the argument hollow.

The court found no evidence to support this claim, noting that the documents presented merely showed Johnson had been invited by the agencies, not that investigations had concluded in his favour.

It was a critical distinction. Being invited is not the same as being cleared, and the court was careful to draw that line.

ICPC’s Mandate Confirmed

With the lawsuit dismissed, the path is now open for the ICPC to proceed. Justice Omotosho advised Johnson to stop fighting the process and instead show up when called.

The proper course for the plaintiff, the judge stated, is to honour the invitation of the commission to enable it carry out its investigation.

The ICPC’s Odey said the ruling affirmed the commission’s legal mandate to investigate corruption-related allegations without interference from the courts when statutory authority is clearly established.

Wider Implications

The judgment reinforces a principle Nigerian courts have leaned on before: that anti-graft agencies must be allowed to investigate before a court steps in to shut them down.

The fact that another agency may have looked at the same matter does not strip the ICPC of its own independent investigative authority.

Johnson’s bid to reframe a criminal allegation as a civil dispute did not find traction with the bench. The commission now proceeds, and the businessman must decide whether to cooperate or face the consequences of continued resistance.