By Onyewuchi Ojinnaka
The former governor of Abia State and chieftain of All Progressive Congress (APC) Dr Orji Uzor Kalu on Wednesday failed to be present in court in continuation of his trial before Justice Mohammed Idris of Appeal Court but got fiat from the president of Appeal Court to continue the trial of Orji at the Federal High Court, Lagos Nigeria up till the last day of November, 2018
It would be recalled that at the last adjourned date in November last year when Orji Kalu failed to attend the court for trial, Justice Idris who was visibly not pleased over Kalu’s consistent absent from court to open his defence, had made an order directing Orji Kalu to report to the EFCC within 24 hours of his arrival to Nigeria from Germany. The judge had also ordered that he should submit all his travel document to the EFCC.
But at the resumed trial of Kalu and his former finance Commissioner Mr Ude Udeogu, the prosecution counsel Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) told the court that despite the court order, first defendant had failed to report to EFCC and as well failed to submit his travel document to the Commission on his return from Germany.
However, the trial Judge, Justice Idris told the parties on Wednesday that the court would await further directives to proceed with the trial of Orji Kalu, facing charges of N7.2 billion fraud. Kalu, allegedly committed the offence between August 2001 and October 2005.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission is prosecuting Kalu together with his former Commissioner for Finance, Ude Udeogo, and a company, Slok Nigeria Ltd., for the alleged offences.
On October 31, 2016, the EFCC preferred 34 charges, bordering on N3.2 billion fraud against the accused later in July 2018, the
charges were, however, amended and increased to 39 counts.
Kalu and the other two defendant had each pleaded not guilty to the charges and were granted bail.
Justice Idris had been conducting the trial of Orji Kalu and two others, following a fiat, authorising him to continue with the trial.
At the last adjourned date on November 12, 2018, Kalu was absent from trial, after being absent on a previous adjourned date of November 5, 2018.
Nevertheless, the defence counsel had informed the court that he was away for medical treatment in Germany. The court had revoked his bail and ordered that at the point of his entry into the country, he must submit himself and all relevant travelling documents to the EFCC, failing which he would be arrested.The court had then adjourned the case until January 23, for the continuation of
On Wednesday, the prosecutor, Mr Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), appearing for the prosecution, informed the court that in spite of its order, the accused had refused to submit himself or his travelling documents to the EFCC.
He argued that such attitude constituted a clear disregard for the court, adding that in the circumstance, he would urge the court to give effect to the provisions of Section 352(4) of the ACJA and continue with the trial of the accused even in his absence.
According to Jacobs, the court should order defence to call its witnesses, failing which the court is allowed by the provisions of the law, to close their case.
Responding, counsel for the accused, Mr. Awa Kalu (SAN), expressed his displeasure with the submissions of the prosecution, noting that such arguments as canvassed by Jacobs should be put in an affidavit for the defence to reply.
Meanwhile after the submission of Jacobs and Awa Kalu, the court, in its reaction, informed parties that although the case had been adjourned for the continuation of the trial, the fiat issued by the presiding judge of the appellate court expired at the end of November 2018.
He said that on January 10, he had received fresh fiat in respect of some other matters before him, adding that the instant case was not mentioned.
Idris said that for this reason, he had strong doubt if he should continue with proceedings, adding that it was important he acted with abundant caution.
“I should not proceed further, otherwise, I will be acting without authority. So, in the circumstance, I am of the view that further proceedings should not go on until I receive further instructions”, he said.
The court added that as soon as such notice was received, hearing notices would be served on parties.