Court Dismisses Justice Nganjiwa Application To Stop Trial Over Alleged N81.7m Fraud

601

Court Dismisses Justice Nganjiwa Application To Stop Trial Over Alleged N81.7m Fraud

 

 Justice Adedayo Akintoye of the Lagos State High Court in Igbosere on Friday dismissed an application filed by Justice Hyeladzira Ajiya Nganjiwa of the Federal High Court, seeking to stay further proceedings in his trial for alleged unlawful enrichment.

 Justice Akintoye, while ruling on the application, held that unmeritorious and an abuse of Court process was involved.

 The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had on June 23 this year arraigned the judge before Justice Adedayo Akintoye on a 14-count charge of unlawful enrichment and making of false statement to EFCC officials.

 Justice Nganjiwa pleaded not guilty to the charges and was granted bail on self- recognizance due to his status as serving judge.

Justice Akintoye, however, directed him to deposit his passport in the court’s custody and also mandated the judge “to present himself for trial for the entire duration of trial.

At the resumed hearing of the case on Friday, the counsel to the embattled judge, Chief Robert Clarke (SAN) urged the court to stay further proceedings in his trial pending the hearing and determination of his appeal before the Court of Appeal, challenging the high court’s jurisdiction to try him.

Clarke, whose application was filed in pursuant to Sections 6(6) and 36 of the 1999 Constitution (As amended), argued that whatever powers this court possesses is subject to the Constitution.

The lawyer also submitted that based on the Constitution, statutes and case law, that the court was bound to refrain from further action on the case, particularly since, according to him, the appeal was set in motion before the defendant took his not guilty plea.

He stressed, “As of today, the Court of Appeal is fully seized of this matter….In those days when we were younger, if a lower court disregarded the judgment of a higher court it was called judicial rascality.”

Clarke insisted that the application was a Constitutional rather than a frivolous one and the issue involved was “a grey area of the law.”

He further maintained that, “We urge Your Lordship to ebb on the side of caution and, in the interest of justice, grant the application.”

However, the EFCC counsel, Wahab Shittu declared the application as time wasting ploy.

 Shittu submitted that, “We are strongly opposing this application based on statutory provisions, particularly Section 273 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL) of Lagos State, Section 306 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) and Section 40 of the EFCC Act,  all of which prohibit the grant of stay of prosecution.

“The application by the learned Silk is incompetent because the law does not allow it. The rationale for this is to forestall delay. Our courts frown at delay tactics by defence counsel. This application is an attempt to stall proceedings by counsel.

“I urge my lord to dismiss the application and order the prosecution to commence its case.”

In a short ruling, Justice Akintoye upheld the prosecution’s argument.

Relying on the ACJA, ACJL and the EFCC Act, the judge held: “This court is not empowered to entertain any stay of proceedings or deferment of proceedings, however it may be described, in criminal matters.

“The judicial system has moved from delay tactics which may be brought to forestall the hearing of a case…as a result this matter will continue today as we await the outcome of the decision of the esteemed Court of Appeal.”

However, trial could not go on following Clarke’s request for time to study an application for proof of evidence served on the defendant on Thursday, by the prosecution.

He said: “I’m seeing the processes for the first time in this court. I need time to go through them.”

But Justice Akintoye’s offer to stand down the matter for 30 minutes, so the defence could examine the documents, was not taken.

“30 minutes? My lord, I am 80 years old,” Clarke said.

Following consultation with the parties, the judge agreed to “give the defendant the benefit of the doubt.”

The case was adjourned till November 13.