The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Thursday, June 27, 2024, asked the Federal High Court in Abuja to cite two Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) – Ifedayo Adedipe and Abdulwahab Muhammed for contempt following their failure to produce the immediate-past Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello for arraignment.
The EFCC’s lawyer, Dr. Kemi Pinehiro (SAN) argued that it was the consequence of the SANs’ failure to honour their commitment to produce Bello in court.
Just Emeka Nwite had adjourned the case until yesterday based on the two SANs’ promise to produce Bello, who was absent again.
The judge adjourned till July 17 to rule on EFCC’s application that the two defence counsel be cited for contempt.
The former Kogi governor wrote to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, praying that he be tried in Lokoja, the state capital, for the N80.2 billion laundering charge brought against him by the EFCC.
Bello’s request is contained in a letter written by Muhammed.
The ex-governor stated that since the funds he allegedly laundered belonged to the state, the capital of Kogi should serve as the proper venue for his trial.
Part of the letter reads: “We hereby apply for the transfer of the case from the Abuja judicial division of the Federal High Court, where it is pending presently, to the Lokoja division of the Federal High Court pursuant to the provisions of Section 45 of the Federal High Court (Establishment) Act.
“The proper court and venue for the trial of the instant case is not the Federal High Court, Abuja judicial division, where the case is currently pending, but the Federal High Court, Lokoja judicial division in Kogi State, where all the alleged offences of money laundering and misappropriation allegedly took place.
“My lord, the buying of property is not money laundering, it is the conversion and or transfer of funds from Kogi State Government’s bank accounts, which is a proceed of the alleged unlawful act that is money laundering.
“All the funds 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 as shown in the proof of evidence are domiciled with the branches of the respective banks in Lokoja, Kogi State.
A June 14 letter from the CJ’s office, addressed to EFCC counsel Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), was signed by the Special Assistant to the Chief Judge, Joshua Ibrahim Aji.
It reads: “You will find attached the copy of a letter by counsel to the defendant on the above subject matter, dated 10th June 2024.
“I am directed by His Lordship, the Honourable, the Chief Judge, to forward the letter to you for your response within six days of receipt.”
Yesterday, Adedipe referred to both letters when the case came up for arraignment.
The SAN had, when the case last came up on June 13, vowed that Bello, who had consistently avoided court despite the issuance of a bench warrant for his arrest, would attend court on the next date.
The court scheduled arraignment for yesterday, believing that his lawyer would honour his words to produce Bello.
When the case was called, Adedipe said given the letter written by his client and the CJ’s directive, the issue of Bello’s appearance in court would take the back seat.
He suggested that the court should await the outcome of Bello’s request.
But prosecuting counsel Pinheiro (SAN) faulted Adedipe’s suggestion.
Pinheiro argued that the business of the day was arraignment and having stated in his opening address that his first duty was to the court, senior counsel for the Defendant ought to explain to the court why the Defendant was absent from court for his arraignment.
In response, Adedipe reiterated that they had written a letter to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court requesting that the matter be transferred to the Lokoja Division of the court. The learned silk submitted that the matter had now moved away from the bar to the bench.
But Pinheiro contended that the letter being referenced had no bearing on the business of the day. He drew the court’s attention to the proceedings of 13th June 2024 where the learned silk for the Defendant undertook to produce the Defendant for arraignment today. Pinheiro noted that while the letter to the Chief Judge was dated 10th June 2024, counsel’s undertaking was made on the 13th of June, 2024 after the said letter. The letter was already in existence before they made the undertaking. He submitted further that until the Chief Judge decided the Defendant’s application, the court had full jurisdiction to proceed with the matter.
Pinheirp argued that the consequence of the failure to produce the Defendant for the purpose of his arraignment is that the learned silks for the Defendant had breached their undertaking to produce him, which they made on two different dates.
He applied that the two MOHAMMED and ADEDIPE, who undertook to produce the Defendant, be invited to show cause why committal proceedings should not be commenced against them.
Dr. Pinheiro argued that since Adedipe was present in court, he should be put in the dock and dealt with summarily. He relied on Rule 31 (3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 2023, Order 35 of the Rules of the court as well as OKO V. ADOYIN (2012) LPELR (CA) and SALIU V. GANA (2014) LPELR 23069 in arguing that the learned silks for the Defendant are guilty of professional misconduct having breached their undertaking to produce the Defendant.
But the learned silk for the defence denied making an undertaking before the court and made an application to withdraw his appearance in the matter relying on Section 349 (8) Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015. He mentioned that the prosecution had obtained an order to arrest and produce the defendant and are unable to do so, why then were they insisting that the defense counsel should produce the defendant.
Countering him. Pinheiro urged that the records of the court proceedings of 13th June 2024 be read out in open court, he drew the attention of the court to the fact that there was a confirmation of the previous undertaking, an apology and a fresh undertaking was given by the defence counsel.
The senior lawyer also informed the court that it was due to the undertaking that he in turn undertook not to effect the warrant of arrest against the defendant. He reaffirmed his application that committal proceedings should be commenced against the two learned silks for the defence
Subsequently, the court adjourned till June 17, 2024 to rule on the application for committal proceedings of ADEDIPE AND MOHAMMED and (or) arraignment.
The court directed that both learned silks must be present in court on the said 17th of June 2024.
