A Federal High Court sitting in Ibadan yesterday adjournedto June 30, for ruling on two separate applications seeking bail forworkers of Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and commercial banks facing trial over the alleged N8billion currency fraud.
At the resumed hearing, seven of the accused persons were present in the court.
Theyinclude Kolawole Babalola, Olaniran Muniru Adeola, Togun Kayode Philips, Isaq Akano a.k.a Isiaka, Ayodele Festus Adeyemi, Oyebamiji Akeem , Ayodele Aleshe and Ajiwe Sunda Adegoke.
The CBN had on November 3, 2014, lodged a petition to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC)inviting it to take over the investigation and prosecution of the cases involving the swapping of currency boxes containing mutilated naira notes meant for routine destruction at its Ibadan branch.
The workers are facing 28-count, ranging from conspiracy, abuse of office, stealing, false declaration of actual amount, concealing of property and fraudulently acquiring assets in excess of their legitimate and provable income.
The offence is punishable under section 7(2) of the Bank Employees etc(Declaration of Assets ) Act,CAP. B1, Laws of the Federal Republic, Nigeria 2004.
Justice Abdul-Malik J.O. of Court 2, after listening to the counsel on bail applications, fixed June 30 and July 4, for ruling on the first set of case heard yesterday.
The judge said hearing of the substantive case was adjourned to July 4.
Mr. Ikenna Chukwuebuka Okolo from Olalekan Ojo Chambers,the counsel to the second and third accused persons – Olaniran Muniru Adeola and Togun Kayode Philip – in his motion and written addresses, drew the attention of the court to the poor health of the accused persons.
He sought an order of the court directing the Controller of the Federal Prisons to allow the accused persons get medical attention elsewhere other than the prisons medical facilities.
Okolo told the court that the health of the accused persons was very important to enable them defend themselves on the charges brought against them and urged the court to grant the application.
The defence counsel, in an application dated May 11 and filed same day and supported by a 12-paragraph affidavit, urged the court to grant the third accused person bail pending the trial .
Headded that because of the new circumstances arisen since the start of the case , the court should consider grant the application based on the discretion of the court.
Opposing the application, the prosecution counsel to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Mr. Debiyi Adeniyi from Rotimi Jacobs Chambers, in a counter-motion, held that the cases against the accused were too weighty and that the offences have direct impact on the economy.
He said the motion was brought in pursuant to section 118 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act Section 18 of the Advanced Fee and other related Offences Act 2006, Section 162 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Jurisdiction of the court .
He said the court could not rely on oral evidence , without actual medical certificate or doctor’s advice.
The counsel added that none of such evidence was before the court to warrant the court to admit the accused to bail.
After listening to both parties, Justice Abdul-Malik fixed June 30, for ruling whether to grant bail to the accused persons or not.
She adjourned the substantive case to July 4, for hearing.
The judge later rose for a 30-minute break.
At the resumption for the second case , the Mr. Olusole Dare,counsel to 4th and 5th accused persons – Isaq Akano a.k.a.Isiaka and Ayodele Festus Adeyemi – in his application for bail also told the court that he was reliably informed by the family member that the 4th accused person was critical ill at the intensive care of the University College Hospital ( UCH) , Ibadan.
He urged the court to grant the accused bail due to his failing health to enable him seek medical treatment elsewhere.
The 4th accused person was absent at yesterday’s proceeding .
The prosecution counsel countered the bail application, saying that the accused had since been attending to his health and that the defence counsel should not exaggerate the situation .
Intercepting, the judge said since the accused was not in court , it meant that the matter has been installed and that there was nothing one can do.
With respect to the 5th accused person, the defence counsel was said to have suddenly fallen ill at the court premises, so the matter was equally stalled.
The judge later adjourned ruling on the bail application in the second case to 4 July 4. September 26 and 28 were fixed for the hearing of substantive case by 11 am.
