Former Jigawa State governor has lost his bid to have his trial returned to a judge who recently stood trial with his lawyer.
Justice Babatunde Qualdri, in a ruling yesterday, refused Lamido’s application for the transfer of his trial to Justice Adeniyi Ademola, who was recently tried with Lamido’s lawyer, Joe Agi (SAN) on corruption charges.
Lamido is being tried with two of his sons – Aminu and Mustapha; two ex-aides – Wada Abubakar and Darlington Agoha – and five firms on a 27-count charge.
They were, among others, accused of abuse of office and money laundering involving about N1.3 billion.
Trial started before Justice Ademola in 2015, with the prosecution calling 18 witnesses until last October when the National Judicial Council (NJC) directed him and other judges accused of corruption to stop sitting, pending the determination of the cases against them.
Justice Ademola was later tried with his wife, Olabowale and Agi (SAN) before Justice Jude Okoke of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), who later upheld the defence’s no-case submission and dismissed the charge against them.
While Justice Ademola’s suspension lasted, the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court re-assigned the case involving Lamido and others to Justice Quadri’s court, a decision Lamido objected to and demanded a return of the case to Justice Ademola.
Lamido’s lawyer argued that starting the case afresh before a new judge was against the interest of his clients and that the decision of the Chief Judge to transfer the part-heard case was against the provision of Section 98(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act.
In his ruling yesterday, Justice Quadri resolved the two issues, set down for determination in favour of the prosecution.
The judge was of the view that the scenario created with the suspension of Justice Ademola, mid-way into his hearing of a criminal case, was not envisaged by Section 98 of the ACJA.
Justice Quadri noted that “there is nowhere under Section 98 where it is stated that where the trial judge in a part-heard matter is unable to continue, the case should be left in abeyance.
“The intention of the whole of Section 98 was to ensure justice. At the time of transfer of this case to this court, Justice Ademola was not sitting.
“This instant case has presented a lacuna embedded in Section 98. The section did not envisage a scenario presented by the case.
“I am of the view that the lacuna in the section falls short in providing a remedy to the lacuna presented in this case. First issue is resolved in favour of the prosecution,” the judge said.
In resolving the second issue against Lamido and others, the court said although Justice Ademola and Agi were acquitted after their trial, the return of the case to Justice Ademola was likely to create doubt about the integrity of the whole process in the eyes of the ordinary members of the public.
He elected to hear the case since the defendants had already been re-arraigned before his court.
Justice Quadri promised the parties to the case that he would do his best to ensure accelerated hearing and fairness.
Lamido and others were later re-arraigned on an amended charge filed by the prosecution on April 4 this year, to which the defendants pleaded not guilty.
The judge later granted bail to Lamido at N100 million with others at N50 million each. They are to, among others, produce two sureties each, who must be civil servants.
The judge gave the defendants two months to perfect their bail terms or they would be remanded in prison. He adjourned the case to October 18.
