MALACHY UZENDU and ABIODUN ADELAJA, Abuja

Mallam Ribadu was billed to appear before the House Committee on Ethics and Privileges which is investigating allegations of corrupt acts against three members of the House.

He was summoned by the House Committee to appear before it yesterday to explain allegations of bribe taking levelled by President Obasanjo against three members of the lower chamber.

Also yesterday spirited attempt by former Education Minister, Prof. Fabian Osuji to secure leave of the Federal High Court Abuja to enforce his fundamental human rights suffered a temporary hiccup, as his case was yet to be assigned by the Chief Judge, Justice Roseline Ukeje.

However, the EFCC boss, however, in a letter written by one of his aides, Musa Bello, said he will not honour the invitation until investigations into bribery cases against some members of the National Assembly were concluded.

House Committee chairman, Hon. Bello Mutawalle, however told journalists that the committee has sent another summon to Ribadu inviting him again to appear today.

Ribadu, he explained, could not honour the House invitation due to an official trip to Lagos.

Hon. Mutawalle who declined to entertain further questions from newsmen on Ribadu’s absence, said in place of the EFCC boss, his committee would take on Hon. Osita Izunaso, one of the three legislators indicted by the President in the bribery scandal.

Izunaso, after a brief closed door session with the panel, told Daily Champion that he is "stable and in fact toughened by the allegation."

"I am stable as you can see. Infact, I am also toughened, moreso when you are accused of what you have not done. It toughens you," he told Daily Champion.

Other accused members of the House, Hons Gabriel Suswan and Shehu Matazu are billed to appear before the panel which continues its sitting today.

Meanwhile, Hon. Matazu has maintained his innocence over the allegations that he collected money from the Federal University of Technology Owerri (FUTO) Vice Chancellor, Prof. Jude Njoku to influence increase in the education ministry appropriation in the 2004 budget.

But Prof. Osuji’s legal team led by Chief Chris Uche (SAN), who stormed the court, could not move the motion for rights enforcement and left the courts premises disappointed.

Chief Uche described Prof. Osuji’s health as "serious", noting that his client would have received a psychological boost if the case was heard.

With Chief Uche were Chief Livy Uzoukwui (SAN), Chief Peter Mgbenwelu, Chief (Mrs) Ifenyinwa Obegolu and Mr. Okey Uzoho.

Prof. Osuji had on March 23, filed a suit at the Federal High Court, Abuja, seeking five reliefs including a declaration that his recent arrest, detention and harassment by operatives of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), from March 16 to 20, are unconstitutional, wrongful and illegal as well as an infringement of his fundamental rights guaranteed by section 35(5)(a) and (b) of the 1999 constitution.

Apart from EFCC, others joined in the suit as respondents are the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) and the Attorney General of the Federation and Justice Minister, Chief Akin Olujinmi (SAN).

However, at the Federal High Court yesterday, lawyers from EFCC who had equally come to court to respond to the motion, were also unable to play their own part.

After lawyers from both parties could not ascertain from court officials reasons for the absence of the administrative judge for Abuja division, Justice Jonah Adah, they agreed to come back to the court on April 5 to thrash out the legal points.

Before they left the court premises at about 10.30 am, Chief Uche told newsmen that they were disturbed that the matter could not go on, especially, "as my client had been ill. The position of his health is serious.

"At least, he would have received psychological healing if this matter had gone on today."

While calling on government not to take action that could worsen the plight of his client (Osuji), he noted that since the matter is in court, "all the parties ought to respect the courts by not engaging in action that would be contemptuous or prejudicial to the decision of the court."