By Edeh John, Abuja
The family of Mrs Rebecca Omokamo Godwin-Isaac says the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has allowed her husband, Engr. Isaac Ishaku Yusuf, to deliver food and essential supplies to her at their residence in Guzape, Abuja, after 13 days.
In a statement issued on Saturday, the family described the development as a humanitarian relief but maintained that Mrs Godwin-Isaac’s ordeal was far from over.
The family alleged that although food and other basic supplies were eventually allowed into the residence, water, electricity and cooking gas had yet to be restored, leaving her unable to resume normal living conditions.
It claimed that the intervention followed sustained public appeals by media organisations, civil society groups, human rights advocates and concerned Nigerians.
According to the statement, allowing food into the residence does not amount to full compliance with an existing court order or restoration of normalcy.
The family further argued that the prevailing conditions at the property differed from the situation before the dispute, insisting that the utilities and access available before the intervention should be restored.
It also referred to documents reportedly filed by the EFCC before the Federal High Court, stating that the commission acknowledged the meaning of the legal principle of status quo ante bellum as maintaining the state of affairs that existed before the dispute.
The family questioned whether the current conditions at the residence reflected that pre-dispute position, arguing that the continued absence of water, electricity and cooking gas undermined the intent of the court’s directive.
It urged the EFCC to fully restore essential services and ensure Mrs Godwin-Isaac’s safety and dignity.
The statement also appealed to the Inspector-General of Police, the Attorney-General of the Federation, the National Human Rights Commission, the Nigerian Bar Association, civil society organisations, women’s groups, religious leaders and other stakeholders to intervene.
The family maintained that its demand was not for special treatment but for compliance with the Federal High Court’s order and the restoration of basic living conditions pending the determination of the matter before the court.
Efforts to obtain the EFCC’s reaction to the latest claims were not immediately successful as of the time of filing this report.
