The Supreme Court yesterday ordered former Senate President, Adolphus Wabara, and two others to face the 15 count-charge of bribery and breach of public trust preferred against them by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC).
The other people affected by the court’s order are former Education Minister, Prof. Fabian Osuji, and Senator Ibrahim Abdul-Azeez.
The apex court, in a unanimous ruling delivered by Justice Datijo Mohammed, set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja, which quashed the charge against them.
Upholding the grounds of appeal filed by Mr. John Bayeshea (SAN) for the ICPC, Justice Rhodes-Vivour remitted the case back to the trial court to be heard expeditiously.
The Court of Appeal in its judgment by Justice Mary Peter-Odili had held that the criminal charges were frivolous, baseless and lacking in merit.
The Appeal Court also declared that the charge disclosed no prima facie, and so could not be sustained by the ICPC.
The accused persons were first arraigned before an Abuja High Court for obtaining N50 million to facilitate easy passage of the budget of the Federal Ministry of Education in 2005.
Three of the accused persons–Senator Badamasi Maccido, Senator Emmanuel Okpede and one other–died during the trial and their names were struck off the charge sheet.
Soon after the arraignment, then President Olusegun Obasanjo, in a television interview, was deemed to have pronounced the accused persons guilty.
Justice Odili wondered why the prosecution failed to attach the list of witnesses and other relevant documents to the charge as required by law.
In the application to prefer the charge against the Appellant, not even one of the three statements of the prosecution’s star witness (Senator Chris Adighije) was annexed to the proof of evidence.
Dissatisfied, the ICPC approached the apex court and raised eight grounds of appeal.
Bayeshea, on behalf of the commission, contended that the Court of Appeal erred in law by holding that: the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they held that the trial court’s discretion was not judiciously exercised when it granted its consent to an application to prefer a charge against the appellants, because the application was not supported by the statements of star witness.
•the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law in holding in effect that the national broadcast of the President of Nigeria was a communication to the learned trial Judge, and a clear manipulation of the judiciary and judicial process by the executive.
•the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal misdirected themselves in law when they held that the learned Judge did not consider each of the applications before him and that the fair hearing rights of the respondents herein were compromised.
•the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they held that the error of stating a wrong date for the commission of the offence by (Osuji) was so fundamental that it could not be amended at the trial of the case.
•the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal misdirected themselves when they held that “the star witness made three statements which were not attached to the applicant for leave to prefer a charge.
•the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal misdirected themselves when they held that the EFCC interim report and the national broadcast by President of Nigeria were made without a hearing from the accused persons.
•the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they held that the accused persons had not in any way been implicated in the proofs of evidence supplied with the application for consent.
The facts of the case, as made available by Mr. Gordy Uche, who is a counsel to the third accused, state that: “On the 20th day of March 2005, one Senator Chris Adighije on invitation by the Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) made a written statement to the effect that he received certain funds from the Appellants for some business between them. He stated that the said money had not yet been invested and consequently, he went to his house in the company of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and handed over to the Commission the N50 million which the Appellant gave him for their mutual business.
“On 22nd March, 2005, the said Senator Chris Adighije made another statement completely contradicting his earlier statement and now alleged that the said money was actually meant to be shared as bribe to members of the National Assembly and had indeed been actually shared.
“Immediately, the Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission wrote an “INTERIM” report to the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The President, acting on the said Interim report, made a nationwide television broadcast on the same 22nd March, 2005 wherein he accused the Appellants of having demanded for and having received bribe to facilitate the passage of the 2005 Appropriation Bill by the National Assembly.
“The Appellants were neither interviewed nor questioned by either the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission or the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria before the said nationwide television broadcast.
“Eventually, the case was transferred to the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) for prosecution. It was the ICPC that even called for the Appellants statements,whereupon the said Senator Chris Adighije made a third statement, this time admitting that he collected the money for bribe.”
