A Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday struck out the suit brought before it by a Non-Governmental Organisation, Matagu Foundation, over alleged diversion of funds by the Bayelsa State Government.

In a suit filed at the Federal High Court, Abuja, with No FHC/ABJ/CS/1613/2019, the Incorporated Trustees of Matagu Foundation had sued the Attorney General of the Federation, Accountant General of the Federation, the Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission, and Attorney General of Bayelsa as 1st to 4th defendants respectively.

The group had alleged the diversion of funds by the Bayelsa State government and approached the court seeking for a declaration “that the diversion of the sum of 850 million Naira and/or 40 million Naira and/or N4 million and N3.5 million from Bayelsa State Government House is illegal and it violates Articles 16, 17, 22 and 24 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples in so far as it limits the rights of Bayelsa People to their common resources.”

They also sought for “an order directing the first to third defendants to stop any further release of funds to the current government of Bayelsa State to curtail any further loss, diversion or mismanagement of the resources of People of Bayelsa State

“An order directing the refund of all the diverted funds in tenfolds with accrued interest at the rate of 30% Interest of the Original Sum to the Bayelsa State Government coffers.

“An order directing the first and fourth defendants to prosecute the public officers who diverted the sum of N850 million Naira, N40 million, N4 million and N3.5 million from Bayelsa State Government House forthwith.”

The first defendant had raised the issue of the locus standi of the plaintiff to institute the suit in the court.

Justice Iyang Ekwo, in his judgment held that the law is trite that the issue of locus standi affects the jurisdiction of the court as it is the legal capacity of the parties in a case to sue.

Ekwo held that although the group is registered as an incorporated trustee by the Corporate Affairs Commission and recognised as a foundation, it, however, lacked the requisite locus standi to sue in the matter as it was not authorised to do so by the objects upon which it obtained registration.

According to the court, “the claim of the plaintiff is not in pursuit of its foundation.

“The consequence of locus standi is dire.”

Consequently, the court made an order striking out the suit for lack of locus standi.