30. The Respondent claims that on 5th December 2013, Amni International
Petroleum Development Company Ltd. wrote to the Central Bank requesting a
recall of the Three Million Dollars (US$3,000,000.00) transferred to the
Applicant’s on the ground that the transfer was made in error and that the
transfer was meant for another entity by the name Quest Drilling. Respondent
further alleges that Mr Chukwuemeka Ekwunife who is the sole signatory to the
account did not make any contact with the Central Bank after the account was
frozen to ascertain the reason why his account was frozen until April 5th 2016,
when he addressed a letter to the Acting Executive Governor of the Central Bank
of Liberia requesting the release of the fund which Amni Ltd. is also laying claims
to as its money.
31. The Respondent contends that its recent review of the immigration records
indicated that Mr Chukwuemeka Ekwunife re-entered Liberia on April 22nd
2016 and contacted some members of the Liberian Senate clearly in violation of
their Constitution to intervene in the matter. Respondent alleges that upon its
investigations, it discovered that Mr Chukwuemeka Ekwunife was indicted and
he is being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC)
of the Federal Republic of Nigeria for an alleged theft of Four Hundred and
Thirty-Two Million, One Hundred Thousand Naira. (N432, 100,000.00).
32. The Respondent claims that the Liberian Government is currently carrying
out an investigation in respect of the Applicant and its shareholders which
involves transactions (laundering) between different countries; including the
Federal Republic of Nigeria and amongst many other countries and saying more
in this case would jeopardize the investigation.
Pleas in law as filed by the Respondent:
33. The Respondent canvasses the competence of the Court to hear cases
involving human rights violations and relies on the authorities of decided cases
to substantiate its argument. In the case of Moussa Leo Keita V. The Republic
of Mali, ECW/CCJ/JUD/03/07 this Court affirmed its competence to adjudicate
on matters involving the violation of human rights within its Member States.
However, the Court also held that:
“The Applicant must show proof indicative of a characteristic violation of
a fundamental right; and “in the absence of any such violation, the
application must be declared inadmissible”.
9