Non-service of charge on Usoro by EFCC stalls arraignment

.Court adjourns Dec 18 for proper arraignment

By Onyewuchi Ojinnaka

Justice Muslim Sule Hassan of a Federal High Court sitting in Lagos Nigeria, has adjourned  arraignment of President of the Nigerian Bar Association, (NBA) Paul Usoro (SAN) over alleged N1.4billion fraud, to December18, as the arraignment earlier scheduled for Monday December 10,  was stalled due to non service of the criminal charge on the accused.
The 10-count charge pending before the court, is preferred against Usoro by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

Others accused persons mentioned in the charge are the incumbent governor of Akwa Ibom, Emmanuel Udom, who is described in the charge as  being “currently constitutionly 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 the governor who is enjoying immunity, other aforementioned accused are said to be at large.

When the case was called on Monday, Mr Rotimi Oyedepo announced his appearance for the EFCC, while Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) appeared with 13 other Senior Advocates for Usoro.

In his submission, Oyedepo  informed the court that the Commission had repeatedly put a call across to the accused, asking him to come to the commission’s office, in order to effect personal service of the charge on him, but the accused had implored the commission on the grounds that he had a function to attend, and had promised to visit the EFCC on December 7. (last Friday).

Oyedepo pointed out that Usoro did not make good his promise, adding that since it is fundamental for the summons to be served personally on the accused, the court should grant a short adjournment, to enable prosecution serve the charge on Usoro, so that proceedings could commence.
He cited  the provisions of Sections 122, 123 and 271 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), arguing  that it is the duty of the prosecution to bring any accused before the court, “unfettered”, for purposes of arraignment.

He stressed that by the provisions of Sections 122 and 123 of the Act, personal service of the charge can be effected on the accused by either a police officer, an officer of the court, a public officer or even a courirer servcie, allowed by law.

After the submission of Oyedepo, a large number of lawyers in the courtroom retorted “he is here in court already, serve him personally, ”

The attendant noise that followed the lawyers’ reaction in the courtroom was thereafter brought under control.

Oyedepo then sought for an adjournment to enable prosecution do the needful.

In response to prosecution’s submission, Olanipekun submitted that he had perused the provisions of the ACJA, and had found no section insisting on the physical presence of a defendant at the commissions’s office to pick up his charge.

“It is the duty of the prosecution to serve the defendant with the charge and not to say come and pick up your charge,”

Defence counsel also corrected the assertion by prosecution that the accused did not honour his invitation to the EFCC.

He said: “My lord will take notice that the defendant is the President of the NBA, meaning, that he is as busy as an ant, with engagements here and there; and with all respect, he has been going to the EFCC office since June, up till last week Tuesday,”

He told the court that the accused received a call this morning from the EFCC office to come down and pick his charge and the accused had responded that he was already in court, and ready to be served with the charge in court.

“The charge is already in the court’s file, so if my lord can direct that the charge be served on him in court, then we take a date for arraignment,” he  added.

After listening to the submissions of counsel, the court held: “It is trite that service of a charge is fundamental to trial and it is not in dispute that the defendant has not been served,” the judge said.

The court noted that by the provisions of the ACJA, service of a charge can be effected by the police or court official, or by courier.

The court consequently, directed the constituted officers to serve the accused with the charge as provided by law.

The case was subsequently adjourned until December 18 for arraignment.

In the charge marked FHC/418c/18, the EFCC alleged that the accused committed the offence on May 14, 2016.

The commission alleged that Usoro, conspired with others, to commit the offence within the jurisdiction of the court.

The anti-graft agency claimed that the N1.4billion belonged to the Akwa Ibom State Government.

They were 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.

According to the prosecution, 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.