A Federal High Court in Abuja, on Wednesday, adjourned hearing in the money laundering case preferred against the immediate-past Governor of Kogi, Yahaya Bello, by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) until Jan. 21, 2025.
Justice Emeka Nwite adjourned the matter after EFCC’s counsel, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, and the ex-governor’s lawyer, Michael Adoyi, made their submissions in favour and against an application by the anti-graft agency.
At the resumed hearing, Pinheiro told Justuce Emeka Nwite that he had two witnesses already in court. He, however, told the court that he had two applications to make since the defendant was not in court. He said his first application was to formally apply that the court should enter a plea of not guilty on behalf of the former governor, even in his absence.
“My first application is to formally enter a plea of not guilty to the defendant, even in his absence.
“The second point is, not withstanding his physical absence, this will be in full compliance with Section 276 of Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.
“Flowing from that entry my lord, it is a humble request that we call the first witness,” he stated.
The senior lawyer, in defending his application to enter a plea of not guilty for the defendant, said “the right to plead guilty or not guilty is a right that can be waved by the defendant.” He, therefore, urged the court to hold that Bello had waved that right.
“What prejudice will the defendant suffer if my lord enters a plea of guilty or not guilty in his absence? Even if he was in court and pleaded not guilty, the situation will still be the same.
“The entry of plea of not guilty by your lordship is an invitation to the prosecution to come and prove the veracity of the allegations,” he said.
But Michael Adoyi, who appeared for the defendant, disagreed with Pinheiro’s submission.
Adoyi argued that the prosecution’s application was made contrary to a subsisting order of the judge.
“Our first point of response to the application made by the learned senior counsel to the complainant is that the application is made contrary to the subsisting order of this honourable court, even made this morning – that no application can be entertained by this court in the absence of the arraignment of the defendant.
“The prosecution has stated severally that the court cannot demonstrate helplessness. A court cannot demonstrate any helplessness in any proceeding and if at all helplessness exists in this proceeding, that helplessness is demonstrated by the prosecution,” he said.
Adoyi argued further that the court, in a criminal trial, is immune and distinct from the prosecution.
He cited previous Supreme Court decisions to back his argument.
According to him, the application made by learned senior counsel for the complainant this morning is a dangerous invitation to this honourable court to aide the prosecution in the performance of its duty of presenting the defendant before the court for arraignment and subsequent trial.
He argued that civil proceeding is different from criminal proceeding contrary to the argument of the EFCC’s lawyer. He said that the prosecution’s application could not be anchored on any of the provisions of the ACJA, 2015 that he had cited, as “those provisions do not excuse the need for physical presence of the defendant.”
Adoyi then prayed the court to refused the oral application of Pinheiro.
The prosecution counsel, however, told the court to dismiss Adoyi’s arguments and go ahead with his ruling on entering a plea of not guilty for the defendant.
Speaking, Justice Nwite pointed out that the ruling might not be ready this year, considering the fact that he was just coming as a vacation judge.
“So what are we agreeing on now learner silk?” he asked.
Pinheiro said the matter would be adjourned for ruling and/or arraignment of the defendant.
The judge thereafter adjourned the matter until Jan. 21, 2025 for ruling on the application by the EFCC and/or arraignment.
It will be recalled that at the last hearing on Sept. 25, Adoyi had told the court that the issue of arraignment of the defendant was the subject matter of an appeal entered by the defendant at the Supreme Court with the Appeal Number: “SC/CR/847/2024 and SC/CR/848/2024”.
He said the most appropriate thing to do was to await the decision of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid appeal before taking any step for arraignment so as not to pull the rug off the feet of the apex court.(NAN)
