The embattled immediate past Governor of Kogi State, Alhaji Yahaya Bello said he was ready to appear before the Federal High Court in Abuja to answer to the 19-count charge the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, preferred against him.
Though Bello was absent for his
arraignment, he briefed a team of lawyers who addressed the court on his behalf
on Tuesday.
A member of his legal team, Mr.
Adeola Adedipe, SAN, told the court that his client would have made himself
available for the proceedings, but was afraid that he would be arrested.
“The defendant wants to come to
court but he is afraid that there is an order of arrest hanging on his head,”
Adedipe, SAN, submitted.
Consequently, he urged the
court to set aside the exparte order of arrest it earlier issued against the
former governor.
Adedipe, SAN, contended that as
at the time the order of arrest was made, the charge had not been served on his
client as required by the law.
He noted that it was only at
the resumed proceedings on Tuesday that the court okayed substituted service of
the charge on the defendant, through his lawyer.
“As at the time the warrant was
issued, the order for substituted service had not been made. That order was
just made this morning.
“A warrant of arrest should not
be hanging on his neck when we leave this court,” counsel to the defendant
added.
Besides, the ex-governor
maintained that the EFCC is an illegal organization.
According to him, the Federal
Government did not consult the 36 States of the federation before it enacted
the EFCC Act through the National Assembly.
He argued that section 12 of
the 1999 Constitution, as amended, required the various Houses of Assembly of
states to ratify the Act before it could become operative.
“This is a very serious matter
that borders on the constitution and the tenets of federalism. It has to be
resolved because as it stands, the EFCC is an illegal organization,” Bello’s
lawyer added.
However, EFCC’s lawyer, Mr.
Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, urged the court to refuse the application, insisting that
the warrant of arrest should not be set aside until the defendant makes himself
available for his trial.
“The defendant cannot stay in
hiding and be filing numerous applications. He cannot ask for the arrest order
to be vacated until and when the defendant is present in court for his
arraignment. He cannot be heard on that applied application.
“The main issue should be
ascertaining the whereabouts of the defendant. All these applications he is
filing are nothing but dilatory tactics intended to delay his arraignment and
frustrate the proceedings.
“If he wants the order of
arrest to be discharged, let him come here and make the application.
“Our position is that the
defendant should be denied the right of being heard, until he is physically
present before this court.”
EFCC’s lawyer further argued
that inline with section 396 of ACJA, 2015, the court could not effectively
assume jurisdiction to decide any application or objection in the matter, until
the defendant is arraigned.
The anti-graft agency said it
would not execute the arrest warrant if counsel to the defendant undertake to
ensure his presence on the next adjourned date.
“If he gives an undertaking
that his client will be in court on the next date, I can assure him that the
arrest warrant will not be executed.
“If he gives that assurance, as
the prosecution, I will personally apply for the warrant to discharged,” EFCC’s
lawyer, Pinheiro, SAN, added.
EFCC told the court that the
Supreme Court had since settled the issue of its legality.
“The charge before this court
is not against a state or House of Assembly, but against an individual who is
said to have laundered public funds.
“It is against an individual
who is said to have taken public funds to buy houses in Lagos, Maitama and also
transfered funds to his accounts abroad,” EFCC added.
Post a Comment