Embattled Yahaya Bello has rejected EFCC’s plea to suspend the arrest order’s execution.
NewsOnline Nigeria reports that the Former Governor of Kogi state, Yahaya Bello, has rejected an offer by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to suspend the execution of the arrest warrant issued against him on April 17 by a Federal High Court in Abuja if he would attend court physically.
This Nigeria news platform understands that Bello’s lawyer, Adeola Adedipe (SAN) while speaking before a Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday, April 23, said the offer made by EFCC’s Kemi Pinheiro (SAN) was unacceptable to his client because the said offer is unknown to law.
ALSO: “I am Afraid of Being Arrested By EFCC”- Yahaya Bello
Pinheiro had told the court that he was willing to give an undertaking that the arrest order would not be executed if Bello’s lawyers could equally give an undertaking that their client would attend court on the next adjourned date to be arraigned on the money laundering charge pending against him.
The EFCC lawyer added he would also apply that the arrest order should be set aside if Bello attended court on the next date.
Responding, Adedipe said: “We cannot accept the offer. The offer is not known to law.”
Earlier in a ruling, Justice Emeka Nwite granted the EFCC’s application for the service of the charge on Bello through substituted means, by handing it, along with the proof of evidence, to the ex-governor’s lawyer.
Justice Nwite overruled Bello’s lawyer’s objection to substituted service.
He held that the lawyer could not decline to accept the documents on behalf of his client having appeared in the case unconditionally and having also filed some applications for the defendant.
Shortly after the ruling, the charge and accompanying documents were handed to Bello’s lead lawyer, Abdulwahab Mohammed (SAN), who accepted them in open court and signed for them.
Following the service of the charge on the defendant’s lawyer, Adedipe applied orally that the warrant of arrest issued against his client should be vacated.
Adedipe cited Section 394 Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) and argued that the arrest order was inchoate because necessary conductions were not met before the court was misled by the EFCC to issue the order.
When reminded that the defendant had earlier filed an application to that effect, Adedipe opted to argue the application, a move Pinheiro objected to.
Pinheiro cited Section Section 396(2) of the ACJA and argued that the court could not hear any of the applications filed by the defendant without him being arraigned first.
NewsOnline Nigeria reports that the EFCC lawyer identified three pending applications filed by the defendant including the one filed on April 12 in which he is challenging the jurisdiction of the court; the second, dated April 19 seeking to set aside a warrant of arrest, and the third one, dated April 22.
“All these applications could only be argued and determined after the plea of the defendant in view of the provision of Section 396(2) of the ACJA.
“Criminal jurisdiction is activated only after the arraignment of the defendant. It is only after that that the defendant can be allowed to raise any application or objection before this court.
“Section 396(2) of the ACJA does not distinguish between any forms of objection. It applies to all forms of objection in criminal cases. It covers both objections to the jurisdiction of the court or the competence of the charge,” Pinheiro said.
He urged the court not to entertain any of the applications in the absence of the defendant in court.
Responding, Adedipe argued otherwise and urged the court to deploy its inherent powers to hear the applications filed by the defendant.
Adedipe noted that the court deployed its inherent powers in the proceedings conducted on April 17 during which the arrest warrant was issued and on April 18 when the prosecution applied for substituted service of the charge on the defendant.
The defence lawyer argued that it would be unfair and unjust to his client for him to be expected to come to court when an arrest warrant was hanging on his head.
He urged the court to discount the prosecution’s objection to the hearing of the defendant’s pending applications before his arraignment.
Also arguing for the defendant, Mohammed said the type of objection, raised by the defendant in his notice of objection, is that which questioned the jurisdiction of the court to hear the charge.
Mohammed said the objection was challenging the competence of the EFCC to file the charge.
“We are saying that the EFCC is illegal,” Mohammed said, arguing that it is the defendant’s contention that the EFCC is not a legal body because the law creating it was not ratified by all the State Houses of Assembly as required.
He argued that since the EFCC was created pursuant to the United Nations Convention on Corruption, the EFCC Act ought to be ratified by states’ Houses of Assembly.
Mohammed argued that since Nigeria is a federation, the Federal Government cannot sit in Abuja and be policing the affairs of the states.
Pinheiro however faulted Mohammed’s argument, insisting that the issue about the legality of the EFCC had been resolved years ago.
He added that the case against Bello is not against Kogi State or the state’s House of Assembly, but against an individual, who is alleged to have laundered money about N84billion public funds to buy property in Abuja and other cities, and directly transferred money to his account abroad.
Justice Nwite has adjourned till May 10 for the ruling.
