Court rejects Yahaya Bello’s request to stop trial

Court rejects Yahaya Bello’s request to stop trial

The Abuja division of the Federal High Court, yesterday, declined the request by the immediate past governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello, to stay further proceedings in the money laundering charge preferred against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

In the early stage of yesterday’s proceedings, there was tension in the courtroom as two Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SAN) involved in the proceedings engaged themselves in a war of words, in a manner that forced the judge to retire into his chambers.

The two members of the inner bar were counsel to the ex-governor, Abdulwahab Mohammed (SAN), and the prosecution counsel, Kemi Pinheiro (SAN).

Meanwhile, irked by the conduct of the defence counsel, Abdulwahab Mohammed (SAN) and Adeola Adedipe (SAN), Justice Emeka Nwite said he would refer them to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) for possible disciplinary actions. The court further adjourned proceedings to September 25, 2024 for the arraignment of Bello, despite the appeal filed by him.

Counsel to the former governor, Mohammed, had told the court that they had filed an application for stay of proceedings on the case, pending the determination of the appeal before the Court of Appeal on an arrest warrant earlier granted by the trial court and other rulings. Mohammed argued that the court could not proceed on the matter until the pending appeal was determined, citing authorities.

READ ALSO:

• Two die fighting over girlfriend in Delta
• Benue gov orders free delivery for pregnant women in PHCs
• FG to build another highway connecting coastal road to FCT – Minister

He also decried the treatment meted out to his colleague at the last hearing, saying, “Your lordship is functus officio”. Mohammed said heavens will not fall if the court stays proceedings awaiting the outcome of the Court of Appeal. We are relying on the provision of the Constitution which overrides the EFCC Act, which the prosecution is relying on”.

However, EFCC’s Counsel, Kemi Pinhero, SAN, who opposed the application, argued that the defendant had not tendered any Court of Appeal document showing that the court wants the lower court to stay proceedings. At that point, the trial Judge, Justice Emeka Nwite, asked whether, having received the application and affidavit, and being aware of the pending appeal, it would not amount to judicial rascality for his court to continue proceedings on the matter.

“Won’t it amount to judicial rascality to continue this case when there’s an issue of jurisdiction?”, the judge further asked.

But the prosecution Counsel, Pinheiro, SAN, said: “It is not really an issue of jurisdiction”, adding that, mere filing of an affidavit could not suffice as the case was not a civil case and urged the court to stick to the matter of the day, which was the ruling on the arguments presented on June 27.

The Defendant’s Counsel, Abdulwahab Mohammed, SAN,  however, told the court that the judge was misled on the 27th of June, and that the request was for the proceedings of that day to be expunged.

“They are asking your lordship to undo the work of the Court of Appeal. To avoid controversy, and, in order not to render the appeal nugatory, this should not continue. Even if Yahaya Bello were to be here, you cannot arraign him,” he argued.

“The affidavit filed on 16th July 2024, is to bring to your lordship’s attention the notices of appeal filed against your lordship’s ruling on 23rd April and 10th May. This appeal was transmitted to the Court of Appeal on 23rd of May and appellant’s brief of argument was filed on the 31st of May. Motion for stay has also been filed at the Court of Appeal. The two appeals basically challenge the jurisdiction of this court to entertain the charges ab initio.

“We urge your lordship to expunge the record of the proceedings on 27th June because, at that time, an appeal had been entered and the proceedings should not have happened. The court was functus officio,” Abdulwahab argued. He said, “insisting on hearing the matter would bring his lordship into conflict with the Court of Appeal”.

READ ALSO:

• Loan: Students will start receiving alerts next week – NELFUND
• Teenager kills 70-year-old father over ‘Amnesty International money’ in Edo
• UN chief slams Israel for dooming prospects for two-state solution

Pinheiro, in his submission, stated that “one of the appeals sought to have His Lordship stay further proceedings until the determination of the appeal”.

He, however, noted that the judge was bound by his own rulings and, therefore, had the discretion to determine whether to proceed or not, noting that the first authority that the Defendant’s Counsel cited was a 1999 case that predated the EFCC Act 2004.

“This same position was canvassed on behalf of Mustapha, SAN, in 2016 case, Mustapha v FRN, and the court held that proceedings can only be stayed where there is a Court of Appeal order to that effect and they relied on Section 306 of ACJA. In Chukwuma v IGP, a 2018 case, the court held something similar,” he submitted.

Responding on point of law, Abdulwahab said: “We have two notices of appeal – one is on mixed law and fact, and the other is on jurisdiction. The authorities he has cited are different from jurisdiction. Chukwuma v IGP is on admissibility of document and not jurisdiction.

“In Chief Cletus Ibeto v FRN, which is an ongoing criminal appeal, all the facts are on all fours with the recent case. The lower court stayed proceedings because of the issue of jurisdiction and, now, the argument at the court of appeal is on Section 306. That is how it is supposed to be.”

In his ruling, Justice Nwite said: “The grant of stay of proceedings is at the court’s discretion, and since it is an issue of discretion, no one can give an authority for the judge to rely on. The judge only needs to exercise this power judicially.”

The judge, who had asked before going on recess, whether it would not amount to judicial rascality to continue the case when there was an issue of jurisdiction, changed his position and noted that the Defendant wanted to use the appeal to delay proceedings.

He said there had been previous Court of Appeal judgments on such matters. He also granted the application for withdrawal of the defendant’s counsel, Adeola Adedipe, SAN, from the case and referred the matter of professional misconduct by the two defendants’ counsel to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC), to conduct investigation on possible infractions. Justice Nwite said, having stated the law, “the question is whether there was an undertaking by Abdulwahab and Adedipe, SAN, which was breached to amount to contempt of court.”

Court rejects Yahaya Bello’s request to stop trial