Appeal: Court Adjourns To September 25 For Arraignment of Yahaya Bello

A Federal High Court, Abuja, on Wednesday, adjourned proceedings on the alleged money laundering case instituted against a former Governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.

Proceedings would continue despite the appeal filed by the defendant on September 25 when the matter comes up for hearing again. NPO Reports that EFCC had dragged Bello to court after leaving office accuing the former governor of the North Central state of money laundering.

Counsels to Bello had told the court that they had filed an application for stay of proceedings on the case, pending the determination of the appeal before the Appeal Court on an arrest warrant earlier granted by the lower Court and other rulings.

READ ALSO: UPDATE: Court Adjourns Emefiele’s Arraignment As Nigeria Police, Lawyers Shield Suspended Central Bank Governor From Camera

When hearing resumed on the matter at the Federal High Court on Wednesday, Counsel to the Defendant, Abdulwahab Mohammed, SAN, argued that the Court could not proceed on the matter until the pending appeal was determined, citing authorities.

He also decried the treatment metted out to his colleague at the last hearing, saying the Prosecution misled the court. “Your lordship is functus officio. Heavens will not fall if he awaits the court of appeal.

We are relying on the provision of the Constitution which overrides the EFCC act which the prosecution is relying on,” the Defendant’s Counsel said. However, Counsel for the EFCC, Kemi Pinhero, SAN, opposed this vehemently, saying the defendant had not shown any court of appeal document showing that the court wants the lower court to stay proceeding.

At that point, Justice Emeka Nwite asked whether, having received the application and affidavit, and being aware of the pending appeal, it would not amount to judicial rascality for his court to continue proceedings on the matter. “Won’t it amount to judicial rascality to continue this case when there’s an issue of jurisdiction?” The judge further asked.

But the prosecution Counsel, Pinheiro, SAN, said “it is not really an issue of jurisdiction”, adding that in the face of Section 40, the mere filing of an affidavit could not suffice as the case was not a civil case. He urged the court to stick to the matter of the day, which was the ruling on the arguments presented on June 27.

The Defendant’s Counsel, Wahab, SAN, however told the court that the Judge was misled on the 27th of June and that the request was for the proceedings of that day to be expunged. “They are asking your lordship to undo the work of the Court of Appeal. To avoid controversy and in order not to render the appeal nugatory, this should not continue.

Even if Yahaya Bello were to be here, you cannot arraign him,” he argued. “The Affidavit filed on 16th July 2024, is to bring to your lordship’s attention the notices of appeal filed against your lordship’s ruling on 23rd April and 10th May. This appeal was transmitted to the Court of Appeal 23rd of May and appellant’s brief of argument was filed on the 31st of May.

Motion for stay has also been filed at the Court of Appeal. The two appeals basically challenge the jurisidiction of this court to entertain the charges ab initio. “We urge your lordship to expunge the record of the proceedings on 27th June because at that time an appeal had been entered and the proceedings should not have happened.

The court was functus officio,” Wahab, SAN argued. He said insisting on hearing the matter would bring his lordship into conflict with the Court of Appeal. Pinheiro stated that one of the appeals sought to have His Lordship stay further proceedings until the determination of the appeal.

He, however, noted that the judge was bound by his own rulings and, therefore, had the discretion to determine whether to proceed or not, noting that the first authority that the Defendant’s Counsel cited was a 1999 case that predated the EFCC Act 2004. “This same position was canvassed on behalf of Mustapha SAN in 2016 case, Mustapha v FRN, and the court held that proceedings can only be stayed where there is a court of appeal order to that effect and they relied on 306. In Chukwuma v IGP, a 2018 case, the court held something similar,” he said. Wahab, responding on point of law, said, “We have two notices of appeal – one is on mixed law and fact and the other is on jurisdiction.

The authorities he has cited are different from jurisdiction. Chukwuma v IGP is on admissibility of document and not jurisdiction. “In chief Cletus ibeto v Frn, which is an ongoing criminal appeal, all the facts are on all fours with the recent case. The lower court stayed proceedings because of the issue of Jurisdiction and now the argument at the court of appeal is on 306.

That is how it is supposed to be.” In his ruling, Justice Nwite said, “The grant of Stay of Proceedings is at the court’s discretion. And since it is an issue of discretion no one can give an authority for the judge to rely on. The judge only needs to exercise this power judicially.”

The judge, who had asked before the recess that would it not amount to judicial rascality to continue the case when there was an issue of jurisdiction, changed his position and noted that the Defendant wanted to use the appeal to delay proceedings.

According to him, there have been previous Court of Appeal judgments on such matters. He also granted the application for withdrawal of the Defendant’s Counsel, Adeola Adedipe, SAN, from the case and referred the matter of misconduct to the LPDC to conduct investigation on possible infractions.

Justice Nwite said, having stated the law, “the question is whether there was an undertaking by Wahab, SAN and Adedipe, SAN, which was breached to amount to contempt of court.” Consequently, he adjourned the case to September 25 for arraignment.