By Onyewuchi Ojinnaka
Justice (Prof) Chuka Obiozor of the Federal High Court Lagos, Nigeria on Thursday disqualified himself from the re-arraignment of the President of Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Mr Paul Usoro (SAN).
When the case was called up for re-arraignment of Usoro scheduled for Thursday, Effiong B. Effiong leading other five Senior Advocates,announced appearance for the defendant while Rotimi Oyedepo appeared for prosecution.
But the re-arraignment could not go on as the judge announced that he is withdrawing from presiding over the case, adding that he is remitting the case file back to the Chief Judge of Federal High Court.
Justice Obiozor said: “I have for personal reasons disqualify myself from this case.
“I hereby remit the case file back to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court for re-assignment.
The case was before Justice Muslim Hassan where Usoro was first arraigned on December 18, 2018 before it was withdrawn from him and transfered to Justice (Prof) Obiozor.
It would be recalled that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had on December 18, 2018 arraigned Paul Usoro (SAN) before Justice Muslim Sule Hassan of a Federal High Court Lagos, Nigeria on 10-counts charge bordering on N1.4billion fraud.
Other persons mentioned in the charge are the incumbent governor of Akwa Ibom State Emmanuel Udom, who is described in the charge as being “currently constitutionaly immune from prosecution”; the Akwa Ibom State Commissioner for Finance, Nsikan Nkan; Accountant-General of Akwa Ibom State, Mfon Udomah; the Akwa Ibom State Attorney-General, Uwemedimo Nwoko and Margaret Ukpe.
Except Governor Emmanuel Udom, other accused persons mentioned in the charge are said to be at large.
Before the arraignment of Usoro before Justice Hassan, a former NBA President Chief Wole Olanipekun who led the defence team had informed the court that defence team had written to the Chief Judge (C J) of the court, seeking a transfer of the case to Uyo, Abuja or any other jurisdiction of the court, apart instant court (Justice Hassan).
Olanipekun argued that based on parity of reasoning and citing diverse judicial and statutory authorities, he urged the court to await the decision of the Chief Judge instead of proceeding with the arraignment.
But responding, Oyedepo argued that the matter was adjourned until Tuesday for arraignment of the accused, adding that there is nothing before the court that can be construed as setting aside that purpose.
He referred to provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), pointing out that objections can only be raised after the plea of the accused had been taken.
After submissions by counsel to parties, Justice Hassan in a bench ruling said: “I have listened vehemently, to the submissions of counsel, and I have also read the letter written to the Chief Judge.
“The issue in view is narrowed down to whether the defendant can take his plea in the circumstance,”
“Although it is not in dispute that the Chief Judge reserved the right to transfer cases, the instant case was already assigned to this court.
Justice Hassan further held that it is a rule, that even where such application for transfer exists, the trial judge should continue with hearing of the case, pending any contrary decision. Consequently, the accused asked to take his plea on the charge.
When the ten-counts charge was read to him by the court registrar, Usoro pleaded not guilty to the charges and was admitted to bail in the sum of N250 million, with one surety in like sum.
In the charge with number FHC/418c/18, the EFCC alleged that the defendant committed the offence on May 14, 2016, adding
that Usoro conspired with others, to commit the offence within the jurisdiction of the court.
He was further alleged to have conspired to convert the sum of N1.4 billion, property of Akwa Ibom State Government, which sum they reasonably ought to have known formed part of the proceeds of an unlawful activity
The prosecution averred that the unlawful activity include criminal breach of trust which contravenes the provisions of Section 15 (2), 15(3), and 18 (A) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011.