The immediate past governor of Kogi State, Alhaji Yahaya Bello, who is facing a 19-count charge, has adduced reasons the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, should prosecute him in Kogi.
he former governor in a letter he wrote to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, said it would be legally wrong for the anti-graft agency to subject him to a trial in Abuja when the offence he allegedly committed was in Kogi state.
In the letter written through his team of lawyers, led by Mr Abdulwahab Mohammed, SAN, Bello, maintained that only the Lokoja Division of the high court had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the allegations against him.
“All the funds which the complainant alleged to have been laundered by the defendant are monies of the government of Kogi State whose state capital is in Lokoja.
“All the bank accounts from which the said monies are stated to be laundered from as shown in the proof of evidence are domiciled with the branches of the respective banks in Lokoja, Kogi State.
“Thus, the law is settled that generally, the Federal High Court’s jurisdiction is one all over the federation, the court is divided into judicial divisions and where a crime is committed in any of the divisions, criminal proceedings, thereof, must be initiated and prosecuted in that very judicial division of the Federal High Court where the act or omission or the elements of the offence were allegedly committed.
“It is pertinent to note that the Defendant was governor of Kogi State, the charges and the proof of evidence indicate criminal breach of trust, criminal misappropriation and money laundering in respect of the statutory funds of Kogi State.
“These are the alleged predicate offences and all their elements took place in Kogi State, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, Lokoja Judicial Division.
“We humbly urge my Lord, to transfer the subject charge to the Lokoja Division of the Federal High Court which is the Division with the territorial jurisdiction to try the case,” the letter read.
Though the matter was originally slated for the defendant to enter his plea to the charge, he was not, however, present in court when the case was called up.
A lawyer, Mr. Adeola Adedipe, SAN, who announced an appearance for him, drew the attention of trial Justice Emeka Nwite to the letter his client wrote to the CJ on June 13.
He said the CJ had already asked EFCC’s lawyer to respond to the request for the case file to be transferred to Kogi.
“My lord, as of this morning, I am not aware whether there has been a response by the prosecution team in compliance with the directive of the CJ.
Though the matter was originally slated for the defendant to enter his plea to the charge, he was not, however, present in court when the case was called up.
A lawyer, Mr. Adeola Adedipe, SAN, who announced an appearance for him, drew the attention of trial Justice Emeka Nwite to the letter his client wrote to the CJ on June 13.
“We are also not in receipt of any decision that has been made on this request by the CJ. I am also aware that this administrative directive of the CJ has been formally communicated to this court.
“We have filed an affidavit of fact wherein we attached two documents referencing the details that I have just highlighted.
“My duty is first to the court. As of the moment, I am not urging anything from the court, but just to present the facts as they are,” Adedipe, SAN, added.
On his part, the EFCC, through its counsel, Mr. Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, urged the court to cite the two senior lawyers that had appeared for the defendant in the matter for contempt.
The prosecution counsel noted that the lawyers had on three occasions, made an undertaking before the court to produce their client for his trial.
He argued that their failure to make the defendant available before the court, in line with the undertaking, amounted to a breach of the rules of professional conduct.
Pinheiro, SAN, argued that Order 31(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for legal practitioners stipulated that any lawyer who failed to comply with an undertaking he made before a court, aside from being in contempt, was automatically guilty of misconduct.
“My lord, our application is that since one of the lawyers is present in court, he should be moved to the dock and dealt with summarily. That is what the law says and this will help to preserve the integrity of the judiciary.
“For five consecutive sittings, the defendant refused to make himself available for his trial and his lawyers have continued to use all forms of chicanery to frustrate his arraignment.
“If this sort of conduct is not punished, then we will be sliding to a situation that will be worse than the Animal Farm.
No comments:
Post a Comment