The former Chief Executive Officer of the defunct Intercontinental Bank, Erastus Akingbola, and the General Manager, Tropix Security Limited, Bayo Dada, were yesterday re-arraigned before an Ikeja High Court, Lagos, for alleged theft of N30.09 billion, property of the bank.
The two men were brought before Justice Adeniyi Onigbanjo on a 22-count charge of stealing and obtaining under false pretence, by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
Their re-arraignment followed the elevation of the trial judge, Justice Habeeb Abiru, to the Court of Appeal last November.
Justice Abiru, at the first arraignment on May 31, 2011 struck out seven of the initial 29 charges preferred against the defendants and Mrs. Anthonia Akingbola, who was said to be at large.
He struck out counts 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24 and 26, which all related to Akingbola’s wife, Anthonia.
Akingbola is standing trial on 17 counts of stealing, Dada is arraigned on five counts of obtaining money under false pretence.
The defendants pleaded not guilty to the offences, which the EFCC said contravened Section 390(7) of the Criminal Code, Laws of Lagos, 2003, and Section 1(1)(a) of the Advance Fee Fraud Act, 2006.
Referring to the ruling by Abiru, counsel to EFCC, Godwin Obla, notified the court that only two defendants- Akingbola and Dada were being held since Abiru struck out the seven charges against Mrs. Akingbola.
Obla told the court that the prosecution was willing to proceed with trial as the matter was of public concern.
The judge, who observed that the matter was at the point of filing written addresses by the parties before his learned colleague was promoted, suggested that the parties should study and possibly adopt the previous proceedings so that the court could continue from where the former judge stopped.
Citing sections 46 and 49 of the Evidence Act, Justice Onigbanjo said it was possible for the court to proceed from where the previous judge stopped, especially because the matter was already at the point of filing written addresses.
Although the EFCC admitted the judge’s suggestion for an adoption of the previous proceedings, counsel to the defendants had their reservations.
Counsel to Akingbola, Mike Igbokwe and Wale Olanipekun (SANs), said the defence team as currently constituted was different from the team that represented the defendants while the case was under Abiru.
Igbokwe also drew the court’s attention to media publications in which the EFCC issued statements of the arrest and re-arraignment of the defendants.
He said: “There have been reports on several instances by the EFCC and my client was detained yesterday without summon or hearing notice. We have been reporting to the commission as part of the bail requirement, but my client went there yesterday to report as usual and he was detained till this morning.
“We are asking if the EFCC has the right to revoke the bail granted by the court. Even the reports, which referred to a statement issued by the EFCC, were prejudicial to fair hearing.
“The EFCC should not be the complainant, prosecutor, persecutor and judge in the same case.”
Obla said the two men were invited and interrogated on another matter pending before a Federal High Court.
He said he was aware that the EFCC had invited and interrogated the defendants for bridging orders of a Federal High Court restraining them from some attached property.
Said he: “The detention of the duo was constitutional and was between 4:30pm and dawn. At no point were they unconstitutionally detained and my learned colleague would have raised the issue before the commencement of this matter, which we would have sorted out.”
Justice Onigbanjo, however, interjected them and said that was not the matter before him.
He told the defence to file a formal application for contempt if it felt the prosecution had bridged court process.
Counsel to Dada, Prof. Taiwo Oshipitan (SAN), said it was obvious the matter would have to commence de novo.
He had earlier observed that since counts 15-18, 20, 22, 24 and 26 had been struck out because they related to Mrs. Akingbola, counts 27 and 28 of the former charge (now 20 and 21) against his client should be removed.
He said: “Unless her name is removed, those charges cannot be read. If her name is featuring and it is a joint trial, the prosecution should produce her before the charges are read because she cannot be tried in absential.”
