EFCC

FACTS OF THE CASE
The facts are that the 2nd & 3rd Respondents as the applicants at the lower Court were customers of the 1st Respondent bank since 1994. The relationship continued until 2003 when the 1st & 2nd Respondents suspected some discrepancies in the management of their account with the 1st Respondent. They engaged a banking consultant to investigate, and it was allegedly discovered that the 1st Respondent had illegally over charged the 1st & 2nd Respondents, in the management of their account, to a tune of N10,776, 921.19k refund of which they demanded. The 2nd & 3rd Respondents though not convinced, mutually agreed with the banking consultant that the matter be referred to the Chartered Institute of Bankers Committee on ethics and professionalism for arbitration. The matter was still pending there for arbitration when the 1st Respondent reported the 2nd & 3rd Respondents to the Financial Malpractices Investigation Unit of the Nigeria Police Force C.I.D Annex, Lagos. Consequently, policemen from Lagos came to Port Harcourt, arrested and detained the 3rd Respondent on 18th April, 2005. The 3rd Respondent was not granted bail until the policemen made him pay N2,000,000.00K to the 1st Respondent. The police further directed the 3rd Respondent to appear before them at Lagos on 10th May, 2005.
In the mean time the 2nd & 3rd Respondents approached the Federal High Court, Port Harcourt in suit no. FHC/PH/CS/385/2005 for leave to apply for enforcement of their fundamental rights. Exhibit ‘U’ contains the order granting the leave sought. The 2nd & 3rd Respondents, at paragraph 28 of their supporting affidavit, aver in the suit as follows:
“28. That the matter is still pending in the Federal High Court 2 and instead of waiting for the judgment of the Court 1st Respondent, in disregard of the Court, petitioned us again to EFCC on spurious claims when it is owing us just to use its right to intimidate us.”
The Appellant’s letter, Exhibit ‘V’, inviting the 3rd Respondent, as Managing Director of the 2nd Respondent, to appear in Lagos before her officer in charge of Bank Fraud, Team 3 on 11th December, 2007 states that “the Commission is investigating a case of Bank Fraud/Diversion of depositors fund reported by Diamond Bank Plc against you and your company.” The 1st Respondent letter of 14th March, 2005 to the 2nd & 3rd Respondents had demanded from the latter, payment of the outstanding sum of N44,137,700.76K plus interest thereon due from the latter to the former within 21 days failing which all necessary actions will be taken against the 2nd & 3rd Respondents to recover the sum without further notice. This letter is Exhibit ‘N’. Exhibit ‘T’ is the letter from the Nigeria Police Force CID Lagos inviting the 3rd Respondent to appear in Lagos on 10th May, 2005 and 3rd Respondent’s arrest and detention in April, 2005 have some nexus or connection with the 3rd Respondent’s letter Exhibit ‘N’.
The 1st Respondent Counter Affidavit seems to admit in paragraph 7 thereof that the 2nd &. 3rd Respondents “through their agents reported the matter to the Banker’s Subcommittee on ethics and professionalism” for arbitration and that “the committee – is yet to finally adjudicate on the matter.” Paragraph 6 of the said Counter Affidavit also admits that the Appellant went to lodge a complaint with the Financial Malpractice Investigation Unit of the Appellant which has the statutory duty to investigate transactions where Banks are being defrauded or the risk of the same exists. The 2nd & 3rd Respondents were merely invited for an Interview on routine investigation. Nobody has threatened to arrest them.
The Counter Affidavit of the Appellant avers that they (EFCC) are investigating the alleged fraud and obtaining by false pretences, not diversion of depositors’ funds, reported against the 2nd & 3rd Respondents to them through 1st Respondent letter of 27th October, 2007, Exhibit “EFCC A.” The letter, Exhibit ‘V’, inviting the 3rd Respondent for interview on 11th December, 2006 had triggered the 2nd & 3rd Respondents resolve to apply for leave to apply for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. Upon leave granted to the 2nd & 3rd Respondents to bring the application to enforce their fundamental rights, the 2nd & 3rd Respondents filed, vide the originating motion on 6th December, 2006, an application seeking orders enforcing their fundamental rights. They sought 3 reliefs, namely:-
(i) A declaration that the invitation of the 1st Applicant by the 2nd Respondent at the behest of the 1st

…………………….B…………………….