Drama In Court: Dagogo-George’s Case Against ICPC Dismissed

Dagogo-George, who serves as Project Manager at Wiseworld Firm Consult Limited, brought the case before Justice U.P. Kekemeke, alleging that her rights were violated following her arrest and detention by the ICPC from October 17 to 19, 2022. The arrest was related to a contract awarded to her firm by the Nigeria Police Trust Fund in June 2022.

During its probe into contracts issued under the tenure of the former acting Executive Secretary of the Nigeria Police Trust Fund, Mr. Mohammed Alhaji Yahaya, the ICPC discovered that Dagogo-George had obtained eight training contracts using eight different companies, all allegedly linked to her.

Each contract was valued at N36,964,441, with training scheduled to occur in eight separate locations. However, the ICPC found that all the companies were owned by Dagogo-George, and despite receiving full payment totaling over N100 million, training was conducted in only three of the intended locations.

The ICPC, in a counter-affidavit, claimed the training sessions were consolidated into three locations and the funds for the remaining five were misappropriated. The commission denied violating Dagogo-George’s rights, asserting she was released on bail the same day she appeared for questioning. However, she reportedly breached her bail conditions by ignoring follow-up invitations.

After repeated failed attempts to secure her cooperation, Dagogo-George eventually returned to the Commission but had her original bail revoked. She was later re-granted bail under new conditions, which she met only in January 2023. The ICPC also submitted evidence showing she agreed to repay N10 million of the unutilized funds.

In his judgment, Justice Kekemeke ruled that Dagogo-George failed to prove any infringement on her right to liberty during the October 2022 detention. He emphasized that a legitimate invitation for investigative purposes does not equate to a rights violation.

“I have thoroughly reviewed the documents submitted with the applicant’s address. They hold no legal relevance and are hereby disregarded. Overall, the applicant has not substantiated her claim for relief. The application is therefore dismissed,” the judge declared.