Yahaya Bello declines EFCC offer, says “it’s not known to law”
By Jeph Ajobaju, Chief Copy Editor
Former Kogi Governor Yahaya Bello has turned down an offer from the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to suspend execution of the arrest warrant the Abuja Federal High Court issued against him on April 17 on condition he attend court in person.
Bello has also insisted in court the EFCC is an illegal body because the federal Act that established it was not ratified by all the 36 states as required by law.
His lawyer, Adeola Adedipe, SAN said the offer made by EFCC counsel Kemi Pinheiro, SAN is not acceptable to his client because it is not known to law.
Pinheiro had told the court he was willing to give an undertaking the arrest order would not be executed if Bello’s lawyers could equally give an undertaking their client would attend court on the next adjourned date to be arraigned on the money laundering charge against him.
Pinheiro added he would also apply the arrest order should be set aside if Bello attends court on the next adjourned date.
Offer not known to law
Adedipe countered: “We cannot accept the offer. The offer is not known to law.”
Earlier in the proceedings, Judge Emeka Nwite granted an application by the EFCC for the service of the charge on Bello through substituted means, by handing it along with the proof of evidence to his lawyer.
The Judge overruled the objection of another Bello’s lawyer – Abdulwahab Mohammed, SAN – to substituted service, and held 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.
The charge and accompanying documents were then handed to Mohammed who accepted and signed for them in open court.
Thereafter, Adedipe applied orally the warrant of arrest issued against Bello be vacated.
He cited Section 394 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) and argued the arrest order was inchoate because necessary conditions were not met before the court was misled by the EFCC to issue it.
When reminded Bello 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 the court could not hear any of the applications filed by the defendant without him being arraigned first.
He listed three pending applications filed by Bello to include the one filed on April 12 which challenges the jurisdiction of the court; the second on April 19 seeking to set aside a warrant of arrest, and the third on 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,” Pinheiro said.
“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 urged the court not to entertain any of the applications in the absence of Bello in court.
_________________________________________________________________
Related articles:
Yahaya Bello dodges court appearance, says he’s scared of EFCC arrest
NBA slams “fake lawyers” who protested over Yahaya Bello, EFCC tango
Yahaya Bello and a complicit judiciary
Police arrest Yahaya Bello’s female ADC as Kogi govt denies aiding his escape from EFCC
__________________________________________________________________
“We are saying that the EFCC is illegal”
Adedipe countered and urged the court to deploy its inherent powers to hear the applications filed by the defendant.
He cited how the court deployed its inherent powers in the proceedings 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.
Adedipe insisted it would be unfair and unjust to Bello for him to be expected to come to court when an arrest warrant is hanging on his head, and urged the Judge to discountenance the prosecution’s objection to the hearing of his pending applications before his arraignment.
Supporting that line of argument, Mohammed explained the type of objection raised by the defendant in his notice of objection is that which questions the jurisdiction of the court to hear the charge.
Mohammed said the objection is challenging the competence of the EFCC to file the charge.
“We are saying that the EFCC is illegal,” he stressed, arguing that it is Bello’s contention the EFCC is not a legal body because the law that created it was not ratified by all the State Houses of Assembly as required.
Since the EFCC was created pursuant to the United Nations Convention on Corruption, he insisted, the EFCC Act ought to be ratified by states’ Houses of Assembly.
Nigeria is a federation, Mohammed reiterated, and “the federal government cannot sit in Abuja and police the affairs of states.”
Pinheiro faulted Mohammed’s argument, insisting the legality of the EFCC was resolved years ago.
He clarified the case against Bello is not against Kogi State or its House of Assembly but against an individual alleged to have laundered about N84 billion public funds to buy property in Abuja and other cities, and directly transferred money to his account abroad.
Nwite adjourned ruling until May 10.