From Eric Ikhilae, Abuja
A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in Gwagwalada has fixed today for the arraignment of a former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Mohammed Adoke (SAN), as well as six others for the $1.2 billion Malabu Oil deal fraud.
Justice Abubakar Kutigi told parties to return by 2 p.m today for arraignment when it became obvious yesterday that not all the defendants had been served with copies of the 42-count charge filed against them by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
The defendants are charged with fraud in the handling of the settlement agreement on the Malabu Oil deal effected under President Goodluck Jonathan’s administration.
They comprised three human beings and four companies and were present or represented at the Wednesday’s proceedings, which began around 2.30pm.
Adoke, dressed in all-white (kaftan and a cap), looked frail and old. His moustache and beards had turned grey.
All the defendants were represented by Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) except the fourth defendant (Nigeria Agip Exploration Company), whose representative said the company’s lawyer was not aware that the case was scheduled for 2 p.m on Wednesday.
Named with Adoke, in the charged, are: A. Abubakar, Malabu Oil and Gas Limited, Nigeria Agip Exploration Limited, Shell Nigeria Ultra Deep Limited and Shell Nigeria Exploration Production Company Limited.
Paul Erokoro (SAN), led Mike Ozekhome (SAN) and others for Adoke (the first defendant); Wole Olanipekun (SAN) led the second defendant’s legal team, while Mahmud Magaji (SAN) led the third defendant’s team.
The fourth defendant was not represented, but Joe Gadzama (SAN) led the fifth defendant’s team and Godwill Ihuajoku represented the sixth and seventh defendants.
After lawyers announced their appearances for parties, lead prosecution lawyer Bala Sanga expressed surprise that all the defendants were present in court when they were not all served with copies of the charge.
“My lord, this is a bizarre circumstance. I do not know why all the parties and their counsel are here. We only served the fifth sixth and seventh defendants. These are the parties that have been served.
“As at 7 p.m Tuesday, I was informed that the second defendant was on the run. I am shocked at the galaxy of senior lawyers here.
“We have not served the other defendants. We do not know why they are all here. We do not know where they got their information. We need time to properly serve the other defendants,” Sanga said.
Responding, Erokoro conceded that his client had not been served.
He said Ozekhome went to the EFCC’s office the previous day but was not allowed to see a copy of the charge, even when he appealed to be given one.
The lawyer later reached into his file, brought out a document, raised it for everyone to see and said: “My lord, although we were not served, we have been able to get a copy of the charge.
“We want to waive our right to be served. We have a copy of the charge.
Read Also: $1.2bn Malabu oil scam: Confusion from EFCC stalls Adoke’s arraignment
“By virtue of Section 136 of the ACJA, service is no longer necessary since the defendant is in court. We are ready to proceed,” Erokoro said.
Olanipekun said his client had been served.
He added that on the previous day, the EFCC called on one of the second defendant’s counsel, Ahmed Audu, to pick a copy of the charge, which he did and signed for.
He expressed discomfort with Sanga’s claim that his client had been on the run, arguing that the second defendant came to court on his own volition on learning about the date of arraignment.
One how they learnt about the proceedings, Olanipekun said: “We saw my learned friend for the prosecution coming to court and we decided to follow him.”
Magaji said the third defendant was invited by the EFCC and was subsequently detained.
“He (the third defendant) has been in their custody since then. They did not serve him with the charge, but only came to court today to say they have not served him.
“We are ready to continue today,” he said.
Gadzama said: “We were served on Monday. We don’t have any problem with that. We were not issued notice that hearing was for today, but we are ready.”
After listening to the lawyers, Justice Kutigi said the law required that the defendants be properly served with the charge before an arraignment can occur.
Leave a Reply