The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) yesterday failed in its plan to arraign immediate past governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello in the absence of his lawyers.
The EFCC took Bello, who is currently in the commission’s custody before Justice Emeka Nwite yesterday for the purpose of arraignment on a charge, marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/98/2024 in which the anti-graft agency accused Bello among others, of laundering N80, 246,470, 088.88 belonging to Kogi State.
At the mention of the case, lawyer to the prosecution, Kemi Pinheiro (SAN) announced appearance, but with no lawyer announcing appearance for the defendant.
The development prompted Justice Emeka Nwite to inquire why the defendant had no legal representation.
In response, Pinheiro said the defendant would be in a better position to answer the question following which the judge turned to Bello for an answer.
The ex-governor, in response, said he was only informed on Thursday, around 11pm, about his planned arrangements by the EFCC before the Federal High Court.
Bello has been in EFCC’s custody since November 27 upon an order by Justice Maryanne Anenih of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) before whom Bello, along with Umar Oricha (Director General, Kogi State Government House) and Abdulsalami Hudu were arraigned on a separate alleged money laundering 16-count charge.
Read Also: Court rejects EFCC’s request to arraign Yahaya Bello without his counsel
Following Bello’s response, Pinheiro proceeded to apply orally for Bello’s arraignment, arguing that by the provision of the law, such proceedings could be aborted where the defendant was absent, not the defence lawyer.
Pinheiro relied on the authority of Joseph Vs. State, 2014 to argue that what the court requires for arraignment is the physical presence of the defendant and not the presence of his counsel.
He cited sections 271 and 396 of Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, noted: “I respectfully apply that the charge be read to this defendant and his plea be taken. Then this matter can be adjourned.”
Justice Nwite then noted that Bello’ case was peculiar in that the court had at the last proceedings, adjourned till January for further hearing.
The judge added that: “It would be a different thing if the defendant had no counsel,” in view of the fact that he was previously represented by lawyers.
Justice Nwite held that, in the interest of fair hearing, proceedings could not be conducted in the absence of Bello’s lawyers as sought by the prosecution lawyer.
In rejecting Pinheiro’s application that the arraignment be conducted in the absence of the defence lawyers, Justice Nwite held that it was in the interest of justice to await the presence of Bello’s lawyers.
The judge said: “I have listened to the submission of counsel to the prosecution and also heard from the defendant.
“It is not in dispute that on 30th of October, this matter came. It is also not in dispute that the defendant was not in court.
“It is also not in dispute that the court ordered parties to address the court on whether the defendant can be tried in absentia.
“And it is also not in dispute that the matter has been adjourned till 21st day of January, 2024 for ruling.
“It will be unfair if the matter is taken without the defendant’s counsel. It would have been a different thing if the defendant had no counsel.
“Therefore, I am of the view that the defendant’s counsel be put on notice,” Justice Nwite said.
He proceeded to adjourn till December 13 for the hearing of the motion by the EFCC for the abridgement of time for the arraignment of the defendant.
Justice Nwite ordered that hearing notice be issued and served on the defendant’s lawyers.
He ordered that Bello be remanded in the custody of the EFCC until December 13.