N4.9bn Fraud: Fani-Kayode, Usman Know Fate March 16
Justice Muslim Hassan of the Federal High Court in Lagos will on March 15 rule on two separate applications filed by two former ministers, Femi Fani-Kayode and Senator Nenadi Usman, challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear the money laundering charge brought against them by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
Justice Hassan fixed the date after counsel to all the parties in the matter argued and adopted their processes.
Fani-Kayode, Senator Usman and others are being tried by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for allegedly stealing and laundering about N4.9bn.
They were charged before the court alongside a firm, Joint Trust Dimensions Limited and one Danjuman Yusuf on June 28, 2016 on a 17-count charge bordering on conspiracy, stealing, corruption and making cash payments exceeding the amount authorized by law.
They all pleaded not guilty to the charge.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) yesterday urged a Federal High Court in Lagos to dismissed the separate commission.
The EFCC in a counter affidavit to the Ministers’ applications insisted that their applications were brought in bad faith to scuttle the trial.
While arguing the application of his client, Fani-Kayode’s lawyer, Norrison Quakers (SAN) argued that Justice Hassan as the then EFCC senior counsel, who prepared and filed the charge sheet against the accused person, believed while instituting the criminal process that a prima facie criminal case had been established against him before preparing drafting and filling the criminal charge No FHC/L/523C/2008 against him.
Quakers also argued that Justice Hassan, being at that time an EFCC senior prosecuting counsel in drafting and preparing the charge against the former Minister must have believed or formed an opinion about him as EFCC prosecuting counsel that as the minister of aviation, he must have abused his office and corruptly enriched himself and thereby committed a financial crime against the country.
He therefore urged the judge to recuse himself from the pending proceedings before him because of the likelihood of bias, having drafted a charge in a financial crime matter as a staff of a prosecutorial agency now having to prosecute yet again a financial crime before him.
The lawyer insisted that he believes that the court as presently constituted does not guarantee fair trial, neither is his client guaranteed of the court neutrality impartiality or fair hearing of his case before the court.
Quakers also asked the court to move the case to Abuja, saying from his review of the totality of the present case including the proof of evidence that all the transactions leading to the alleged offence all occurred in Abuja while the accused person was the Director of Media and Publicity of the Goodluck Jonathan presidential campaign organisation (PCO) with its office in Abuja outside the Lagos Division of the court.
He further maintained that since all the proposed witnesses, including majority of the prosecution witnesses and branches of financial institutions involved in the matter all reside and conduct their businesses in Abuja outside the Lagos Division of the court it would be proper to move the case to Abuja moreso as the former minister is presently standing trial in a sister case in Abuja in charge No FHC/ABJ/CR/140/2016 Fderal Republic of Nigeria V. Chief Femi Fani Kayode at the Federal High Court, Abuja Judicial divisions of the court.
On his part, counsel to Usman, Abiodun Owonikoko (SAN) citing the authority of Bamaiyi vs State, urged the court to severe the trial of the defendants, adding that where same is refused, then it will become a proper subject for reference to the appellate court.
The lawyer submitted that his application was brought pursuant to the provisions of sections 45 (1), and 49 (1) of the Federal High Court Act, as well as the provisions of sections 209 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act.
Owonikoko stressed that he was concerned with the joint trial of the first and second accused as well as the choice of Lagos as venue for the matter, which subject matter he said had nothing to do with Lagos.
The senior lawyer argued that this was particularly so, because he had made a clear case that fair hearing cannot be achieved in a joint trial between the first and second accused.
According to him, it was so tedious for his client to come from Abuja to Lagos on every adjourned date and spend not less than three days in Lagos, especially with all accounts frozen.
But the anti-graft agency in its reply to the applications maintained that the court has the jurisdiction to entertain the case and the proof of evidence has disclosed a prima facie case against the defendants.
The commission also argued through its counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo, that since the trial judge is not a employee of the EFCC, the allegation of likely bias levelled against by the defendants can not be sustained.
The anti-graft agency also submitted that the case can be tried in Lagos because most of the activities alleged in the case did not only occur in Abuja.
