The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Federal High Court

  • Man jailed three months for drug peddling

    Man jailed three months for drug peddling

    A Federal High Court in Lagos on Thursday sentenced a 32-year-old man, Shola Adewuyi, to three months imprisonment for dealing in 33.3g of hemp.

    The convict faced a charge of dealing in restricted narcotics, brought against him by the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency ( NDLEA )

    Justice Oluremi Oguntoyinbo sentenced Adewuyi after he pleaded guilty to the charge.

    Oguntoyinbo held that the accused was guilty as charged.

    “You are hereby sentenced to three months imprisonment, beginning from the date of your arrest,’’she said.

    Earlier, the Prosecutor, Mr Jeremiah Aernan, had told the court that the accused committed the offence on September 22 at Coker Estate, Shasha Egbeda, Lagos.

    He said the accused was caught with about 33.3 g of Cannabis Sativa, popularly known as hemp.

    According to the prosecutor, the offence contravened the provisions of Section 11 (c) of the NDLEA Act, Cap. N30, Laws of the Federation, 2004.

    In his review of the facts of the case, Aernan tendered in evidence a written statement of the accused, the hemp, a request for scientific aid form and a drug analysis form as exhibits.

    The court, accordingly, admitted and marked them as exhibits.

    Before his sentence, the accused had begged the court to temper justice with mercy, promising that he would never commit such crime again if pardoned.

    NAN

  • Ex-Minister gets court’s nod to treat breast cancer abroad

    Ex-Minister gets court’s nod to treat breast cancer abroad

    The Federal High Court in Lagos Tuesday permitted former Finance Minister (state) Senator Nenadi Usman to treat herself abroad for breast cancer.

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) re-arraigned her and former Minister of Aviation Chief Femi Fani-Kayode for alleged N4.6billion laundering and fraud.

    They were re-arraigned along with a former National Chairman of the Association of Local Government in Nigeria (ALGON) Yusuf Danjuma, and a company, Jointrust Dimensions Ltd.

    They pleaded not guilty to the 17-count charge of money laundering.

    Mrs Usman applied through her lawyer Chief Ferdinand Orbih (SAN) to the court to release her International Passport to enable her travel overseas on December 18 for cancer treatment.

    She said she wished to be away for 45 days, promising not to jump bail.

    EFCC’s lawyer Rotimi Oyedepo did not oppose the application. He said: “I will leave it to the court’s overriding discretion.”

    Justice Rilwan Aikawa granted the application and directed Usman to submit her International Passport to the court’s Deputy Registrar once she returns.

    According him, there would be dire consequences if she fails to comply with the directive.

    The court earlier admitted Fani-Kayode’s bank account statement in evidence.

    He dismissed the defendants’ objections that statement did not comply with Section 90 (1) (1)(1-iv) of the Evidence Act.

    The judge held that the prosecution complied with the section.

    Count one of the charge reads: “That you, Nenadi Esther Usman, Femi Fani-Kayode, Danjuman Yusuf And Jointrust Dimentions Nigeria Ltd on or about the 8th day of January, 2015, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court conspired amongst yourselves to indirectly retain the sum of N1, 500, 000,000.00 which sum you reasonably ought to have known forms part of the proceeds of an unlawful act to wit: stealing.”

    The defendants were also accused of indirectly retaining N300million, N400million and N800million, all proceeds of corruption, according to EFCC, which added that the allegedly offence was committed between January 8 and March 25, 2015 ahead of the general election.

    Justice Aikawa adjourned until January 31, 2018.

  • Court orders temporary forfeiture of ‘Diezani’s $4.760m property’

    Court orders temporary forfeiture of ‘Diezani’s $4.760m property’

    The Federal High Court in Lagos Tuesday ordered the temporary forfeiture of two penthouses valued at $4.760m allegedly belonging to former Petroleum Resources Minister Mrs Diezani Alison-Madueke.

    The properties are: Penthouse 21, Building 5, Block C, 11th floor (Bella Vista Estate) Banana Island, Ikoyi, and Penthouse 22, Block B (Admiralty Estate) also in Ikoyi, Lagos.

    Justice Mojisola Olatoregun ordered that they be forfeited to the Federal Government.

    She ruled on an ex-parte application filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

    The order, the judge said, is to subsist pending the conclusion of EFCC’s investigation on the properties’ ownership.

    EFCC said they are reasonably suspected to have been acquired with “proceeds or crime”.

    Mrs Alison-Madueke, Donald Amangbo, Schillenburg LLC and Sequoyah Property Limited are the respondents.

    The commission said the companies in whose names the companies were acquired belong to the former minister.

    Justice Olatoregun also granted an injunction against any disposal, conveyance, mortgaging, lease, sale or alienation of the properties.

    EFCC’s lawyer Anselm Ozioko said the application was based on Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006, and Section 44(2)(b) and(k) of the 1999 Constitution.

    An investigator, Abdulrasheed Bawa, who deposed to a supporting affidavit to the ex-parte motion, said sometime in 2016, a search warrant was executed at Amangbo’s premises.

    He said Amangbo was “an acquaintance of former Minister of Petroleum Resources Mrs Alison Madueke.”

    The investigator said one of the documents recovered from Amamgbo led the operatives to the Deputy Managing Director YF Construction Development and Real Estate Limited, Mr. Fadi Basbous.

    The deponent said Basbous made a statement where he stated that the two properties were sold at $3.570million and $1.194 million and are owned by Sequoyah Properties Limited and Schillenburg LLC.

    Bawa said the properties were paid for by Mrs Angela Jide-Jones and Atlantic Energy Drilling Concept Limited.
    According to him, Mrs  Jide-Jone was married to Mrs Alison-Madueke’s associate, Jide Omokore, who registered and promoted Atlantic Energy Drilling Concept.

    The EFCC investigator said Omokore paid for the properties through his wife, Angela.

    According to the operative, Omokore allegedly directed the developer (seller) to sign the agreements with Schillenburg LLC and Sequoyah Properties.

    The deponent said Schillenburg LLC was registered in Hongkong and was transferred on March 30, 2012, to Amamgbo as sole owner.

    According to the EFCC investigator, Amamgbo stated in his statement that he incorporated Schillenburg LLC and handed it over to Mrs. Alison-Madueke “for a transaction”.

    The deponent added that Sequoyah Properties “is among 18 companies registered by Donald Chid Amangbo for holding the properties of Mrs Diezani Alison-Madueke”.

  • Alleged Diezani bribe: Court dismisses defendant’s forced statement claim

    Alleged Diezani bribe: Court dismisses defendant’s forced statement claim

    The Federal High Court in Lagos Monday dismissed claims by a former Administrative Secretary at the Kwara State office of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) Mr Christian Nwosu that he was forced to make statements.

    He told the court that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) allegedly forced him to surrender his property worth N30million.

    He claimed he was also induced to part with N5million in a bid to regain his freedom.

    According to Nwosu, the statements he made at EFCC were dictated to him while the one he made voluntarily was described as “rubbish”.

    Nwosu and Tijani Inda Bashir were accused of receiving N30million bribe from former Petroleum Minister Mrs Diezani Alison-Madueke to rig the 2015 general election results.

    They were arraigned along with Yisa Adedoyin, who pleaded guilty to receiving cash payment of N70, 050,000.00 from Mrs Alison-Madueke.

    Mrs Alison-Madueke is also named in the charge, but is said to be “at large”.

    Justice Mohammed Idris had ordered a trial within trial to determine the truthfulness of Nwosu’s statements.

    Ruling on the trial within trial Monday, Justice idris held that there was no sufficient proof that Nwodu did not make his statements voluntarily.

    He said he did not find any confession to any crime by Nwosu in the statements.

    “A confession, to be a confession, must be direct and positive as far as the charges are concerned. To constitute a confession, a statement must admit that the maker thereof admitted the offences for which he is charged and must be clear, precise and unequivocal.

    “It has not been shown that the statements made were direct and unequivocal to the commission of the offence for which the first defendant stands trial in this matter.

    “I cannot in the circumstances, therefore, hold these statements are indeed confessional,” the judge said.

    He said Nwosu admitted that a word of caution was read to him before he signed the statements.

    Justice Idris added that the first defendant failed to corroborate his claim that he was forced to make the statement.

    “In the circumstances, I hold that the statements are admissible in evidence. The statements are, therefore, admitted in evidence and are marked as exhibits in the trial,” Justice Idris said.

    He adjourned until January 11 for continuation of trial.

  • Appeal Court affirms Olafeso as S’West PDP boss

    Appeal Court affirms Olafeso as S’West PDP boss

    The Court of Appeal sitting in Ado-Ekiti, the Ekiti State capital, on Monday granted an Interim Order staying execution of all orders granted by the Federal High Court, Ado-Ekiti restraining the Dr. Eddy Olafeso-led Southwest Zonal Executive from functioning.

    The three-man panel led by Justice Ahmad Belgore stopped all proceedings at the Federal High Court presided over by Justice Taiwo Taiwo pending the determination of the appeal.

    In granting the application for stay of execution of Justice Taiwo’s orders, the appellate court took cognizance of the pending application to commit Olafeso and his exco to prison for contempt scheduled to be heard at the Ado-Ekiti Federal High Court on 6th December.

    The court frowned at a letter dated 30th November, 2017 addressed to the Presiding Judge for the Ado-Ekiti Division, Justice Belgore, written by a factional Zonal Chairman, Chief Makanjuola Ogundipe, seeking the postponement of the hearing of the motion for a stay of execution brought by Olafeso.

    While Olafeso belongs to the Senator Ahmed Makarfi’s National Caretaker Committee, Ogundipe belongs to the sacked Senator Ali Modu Sheriff-led faction.

    The Supreme Court had on 12th July affirmed Makarfi-led exco as the authentic leadership of the party and removed Sheriff from office as the national chairman.

    Justice Belgore ruled: “All the orders and rulings of the lower court delivered on October 17, October 23, November 8 and November 27, 2017 have been stayed in the interim, meaning that those orders and rulings are of no value as from now and cannot be used anywhere having been rendered null and void and that all the proceedings at the Federal High Court have been stayed pending the interlocutory appeal that is before the Appeal Court.”

    The court, subsequently, adjourned further hearing on the appeal till 15th January, 2017.

    Ogundipe had in a suit number FHC/AD/CS/18/2017 averred that the Supreme Court judgment did not invalidate his executive claiming the verdict only affected the national body led by Sheriff.

  • Appeal Court declares Albert winner of PDP senatorial primary election in A/Ibom

    Appeal Court declares Albert winner of PDP senatorial primary election in A/Ibom

    The Court of Appeal sitting in Calabar, Cross River State, on Thursday overturned the judgment of the Federal High Court in Uyo and declared Senator Bassey Albert of the People’s Democratic Party ( PDP ) as the winner of the party’s primary election that held in December 2014.

    In February this year, the Federal High Court in Uyo, Akwa Ibom State, had sacked Albert, who is the incumbent Senator representing Akwa Ibom North East Senatorial District.

    One Mr Bassey Etim, who claimed he was the real winner of the party’s primary election, and was wrongly substituted with the Albert, had dragged incumbent senator to court.

    In delivering the judgment, Justice Fatun Riman of the Federal High Court in Uyo, had ordered Albert to refund all salaries and entitlements so far collected as Senator, as well as asked the Independent National Electoral Commission to issue the certificate of return to Etim as Senator representing the district.

    Albert had challenged the decision in the Court of Appeal in Calabar, and delivering judgment Thursday, the Presiding Judge, Justice S. J. Adah, with Justices Iheme Nwosu and J. O. K. Oyewole, declared that he was the winner, as his challenger Etim, lacked evidence to support his claim.

    Mr Mba Okweni, SAN, who represented Etim, hinted they would be heading to the Supreme Court to challenge the decision.

    The lawyer said, “They have nullified the judgment of the Federal High Court which declared Bassey Etim as the actual winner of the PDP primaries that was conducted on the 7th day of December 2014, and then that Albert was properly the candidate of the party.

    “Incidentally, Albert is still sitting in the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, so he will continue until we test it further and know what the position of the Supreme Court will be. Sincerely within me, I feel that the judgment should be tested further until the Supreme Court makes a pronouncement one way or the other on the issue and some of the points that have been raised, which we feel are not properly placed. Then we can have a final statement on it. We believe strongly that if things continue the way they are going, impunity in our political parties would continue. A situation where elections were properly conducted and because somebody has the strength and government behind him, they sit down in government house and fill another result and remove the name of the winner cannot be allowed to remain like that. So we feel that until the Supreme Court, which is the apex court and final court in the land, review the evidence and take a position on it. The matter has not yet been laid to rest. We thank the Justices of the Court of Appeal for being able to come up with the decision early enough,” Okweni said.

    Albert’s lawyer, Oba Folaho Ojibara, said they had overwhelming evidence that his client was the legitimate winner of the primary election that eventually led to the 2015 general elections, which he won.

    “The issues before the before the Justices of the Court of Appeal were very clearly narrowed down. The kind of evidence that the appellant presented before the lower court was so overwhelming and the Justices of the Court of Appeal latched on to these bits of evidences. You must recall that the first respondent here Bassey Etim was the plaintiff at the lower court and law requires that he who has asked must prove and he was the one coming to court saying that he won the primaries and unfortunately for him, he had nothing to support his claims and that is what their Lordships of the Court of Appeal hammered on very strongly. Their Lordships were guided by their records and they looked at the avalanche of documents that the appellant presented in his matter. You must also remember that the appellant was a defendant and so the burden of was not on him, but he came to court, before the Federal High Court in Uyo and presented documents after documents, facts after facts, witnesses after witnesses, all to establish the incontrovertible fact that he won the primaries that led to the general election which he also won. So their Lordships of the Court of Appeal have affirmed the mandate of the people of that Senatorial District.

    “They overturned the decision of the Federal High Court and in so doing, they held very clearly that the decision of the Federal High Court was perverse because the decision was against the weight of evidence that was before the Federal High Court and that is what we are confronted with today. So it is a celebration for justice and something every Nigerian should be happy about,” he said.

    Akwa Ibom State legal adviser of PDP, Godwin Umoh, also said, “It shows clearly like the Justices of the Supreme Court had said that a political party is supreme. The decision of the party in relation to nomination and primaries, that decision is supreme and final. And we as a party had nominated Bassey Albert and we showed by credible evidence. I thank the court for doing a wonderful job. They were meticulous.”

  • Court to decide suit over IPOB leader’s whereabouts Dec. 13

    Court to decide suit over IPOB leader’s whereabouts Dec. 13

     

     

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has scheduled its decision for December 13 in a suit seeking to compel the Chief of Army Staff, Lt.-Gen. Tukur Buaratai to account for the whereabouts of the leader of the proscribed pro-Biafra group, Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu.

    In the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/908/20017 filed in Abuja in Kanu’s name by his lawyer, Ifeanyi Ejiofor, the plaintiff claimed among others, that the soldiers, who allegedly invaded Kanu’s father’s house on September 14 this year, took him away, a claim Buratai denied.

    The trial judge, Justice Binta Nyako chose the date for the court’s decision in the case after entertaining the final submissions from parties yesterday.

    Arguing his client’s case Friday, Ejiofor stated that contrary to Buratai’s denial, the soldiers that stormed Kanu’s father’s house had a direct contact with him on September 14.

    He said the soldiers that were in Kanu’s hometown for ‘Operation Python Dance II’, a military exercise aimed at quelling separatist agitation in the South-East, had the last contact with him.

    He exhibited photographs, which he claimed showed scenes of destruction at Kanu’s house during the purported invasion by the soldiers. He urged the court to “invoke the doctrine of last seen” to compel the Chief of Army Staff to produce Kanu.

    Ejiofor added: “The exhibits before the court point to the fact that the personnel of the respondent (the Chief of Army Staff) had the last contact with the applicant (Kanu). It is clear that the army had the last contact with the applicant.”

    He contended that the grounds, on which the COAS hinged his notice of preliminary objection, to urged the court to decline jurisdiction to hear the suit was unfounded in law.

    Ejiofor said the issue of locus standi raised by the respondent on the basis of speculation that Kanu was dead was of no moment in a suit for an order ofhabeas corpus.

    Responding, lawyer to Buratai, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN) prayed the court to dismiss the suit on the grounds that it was “riddled with conjecture, speculation, assumption and unfounded opinions”.

    Kehinde said: “We urge your lordship not to spend judicial time on hearing the application on merit and to dismiss it. My lord is not allowed to act on conjecture and speculation which the application is founded on.”

    The Senior Advocate contended that contrary to the plaintiff’s argument, soldiers never had any contact with the IPOB leader.

    Kehinde further contended that the plaintiff was wrong to have initiated the suit via a writ of habeas corpus, because such process could not be deployed, under the law,  by the plaintiff, who is not certain that Kanu was in the custody of the Nigerian Army.

    According to him, “The writ of habeas corpus is only used when it is certain that the applicant is in the custody of the respondent; not in this instance case when the application is speculating that the applicant is the custody of the applicant or that the applicant has not been seen.”

    Citing part of the plaintiff’s affidavit supporting the suit, Kehinde noted that plaintiff admitted that the search for Kanu conducted by family members had not yielded fruit.

    Kehinde added: “That is to buttress the fact that there is no certainty. The army never conceded that he is in their custody and the onus has shifted to and remained with the applicant to prove that he is in their custody.

    “When there is doubt as to the custody of the applicant, the writ of habeas corpus is not applicable.”

    According to Kehinde, the court could only invoke the doctrine of “last seen” in a criminal trial involving murder or culpable homicide whereby the court would impose duty on the accused persons to account for the death of the deceased.

  • Drama: Judge compels accused to lead own defence witness

    Drama: Judge compels accused to lead own defence witness

    There was a mild drama at the Federal High Court II, Jos, on Thursday when the Judge compelled an accused being tried by the court to lead his defence witness, following the absence of his (accused) counsel in court.

    The accused, Ibrahim Suleiman, a Jos-based business man, has been standing trial since 2007 over alleged involvement in hacking into the system of the defunct First Inland Bank plc.

    He is being tried by EFCC on a seven-count charge of money laundering, contrary to Money Laundry Prohibition Act of 2004, among others.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that trouble began for the accused when a letter came from his two counsel, Mr Uche Mgbemena and Mr S. Ogunbiyi, explaining their inability to be in court to represent him.

    Mgbemena was bereaved while Ogunbiyi said he was ill and not fit enough to be in court.

    When the case came up before the judge, Justice Ayo Emmanuel, the accused pleaded with the court to adjourn the case following the hiccups created by the absence of his counsel.

    However, the judge refused his appeal.

    “The last time we sat on Oct. 12, 2017, we all agreed that you will take your subpoenaed defence witness today on resumption, more so that you have exhausted your adjournment privileges.

    “As you can see, the prosecution counsel has opposed your application for adjournment.

    “So, you have to continue with your case now that the defence witness is here for you to ask him your questions,” Emmanuel said.

    However, Suleiman, who was unrelenting in his pleas, said: “My Lord, my counsels are not here in court and I am constrained now.

    “I can’t continue on my own because I don’t even know what to ask him (Defense witness).’’

    “As it is now, I don’t even have the documents such as the bank statements of my account which are with my counsel; supposing I have them, I may try.

    “My Lord, I am not a lawyer and I don’t think I can do it,” he pleaded.

    The Judge then ordered the court clerks to quickly produce the statements of account from the case file and present to the accused.

    At this point, Suleiman studied the documents and engaged his own witness, Mr David Joshua, a Fund Transfer Officer with Sterling Bank Plc, for almost three hours.

    When the accused asked the witness whether some of the entries and withdrawals contained in the two statements tagged Exhibits P12 and D10 could be said to be regular, the witness said, “they are not regular’’.

    “This kind of transactions are not regular; both statements of accounts are contradicting themselves. In P12, N400.7 million came in on June 29, 2007 but it came in D10 after N165m came in the same day.’’

    “Looking at the transactions that took place, nothing like hacking took place; this I can prove,’’ he said.

    Joshua said that what happened was a manipulation done by a bank staff.

    “In banking system, a bank statement of a customer can be obtained in any branch of the bank and it will always be the same irrespective of the time.’’

    Joshua explained that the sum contained in the petition letter tagged as Exhibit P1 could not be seen in both P12 and D10.

    The Prosecution Counsel, Mr Cosmas Ugwu, in his cross examination of the witness, asked him whether a banker would deliberately do such transactions in both P12 and D10.

    In his response, Joshua said: “yes; with a different intention, such narrations can be done.’’

  • Patience Jonathan begs court to unfreeze accounts with N3.5b, $5.8m

    Patience Jonathan begs court to unfreeze accounts with N3.5b, $5.8m

    Wife of ex-President Goodluck Jonathan, Patience has asked a Federal High Court to lift the temporary freeze issued on 16 accounts allegedly held in banks by her and some firms linked to her.

    The accounts, said to contain $5.8million and N3.5 billion, are domicile in Zenith Skye, Eco, Fidelity, Stanbic IBTC and Diamond banks.

    Mrs. Jonathan’s request is contained in a motion she filed before the court, and in which she faulted the method adopted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in obtaining two ex-parte interim freezing orders on the accounts.

    She contended that the freezing orders have lapsed and should be vacated having been first made on May 30 this year and renewed on October 10.

    Mrs. Jonathan said the accounts were maintained by her, the Incorporated Trustees of her foundation -Ariwabai Aruera Reachout Foundation – and nine other companies in which she has interest.

    She argued that the orders of interim forfeiture made on May 30, 2017 including a subsequent one issued on October 10, 2017 have become spent and could no longer be extended, because the original order was obtained through an improper use of court process by the EFCC.

    She stated, in the motion filed by her lawyer, Mike Ozekhome (SAN) that the Federal High Court in Abuja, on May 30 , 2017 granted an ex-parte order in favour of the of the Federal Government against all the accounts own and operated by her and the companies

    She said the same FG later went before the Lagos division of the court, presided over by Justice C.M.A Olatoregun to obtain similar order on October 10 this year in respect of accounts held by her, Finchley Top Homes limited and Ariwabai Aruera Reachout Foundation.

    Mrs. Jonathan stated that prior to the grant of the ex -parte motion  by the court in Abuja the FGhad filed a similar application before Justice Olatoregun of Lagos division but failed to disclose the fact that it had obtained same reliefs in Lagos.

    She added that the owners of the money were never served with the interim order and that they became aware of it during a hearing of a petition she lodged at the National Assembly.

    When the case was called yesterday before Justice Binta Nyako, Osekhome urged the court to first, here his client’s motion before the one filed by the EFCC for the extension of the orders earlier made by the court.

    Lawyer to the EFCC, Richard Dauda also insisted that his application should take precedence.

    Justice Nyako however, adjourned to November 23.

  • Court refuses to stop Dasuki’s trial 

    Court refuses to stop Dasuki’s trial 

    A Federal High Court in Abuja Wednesday rejected the request by former National Security Adviser (NSA), Mohammed Dasuki for an indefinite adjournment in his trial for alleged illegal possession of firearms and money laundering.

    Dasuki had filed a motion, seeking an indefinite adjournment in his trial pending the determination of an appeal he filed before the Court of Appeal in Abuja, which he said was a referral of a question of law to the appellate for determination.

    Justice Ahmed Mohammed, in a ruling yesterday, said Dasuki’s motion was misconceived and lacked merit because it was hinged on a non-existing question of law purportedly referred to the appellate court.

    Justice Mohammed said the procedure for referring a constitutional question to the Court of Appeal, under section 295(2) of the Constitution, required that such referral should be made by the trial court, but not by a party in the trial filing an appeal.

    The judge said: “In the procedure stated in section 295(2) of the Constitution, it is the trial court, and in this case, this court that will form the opinion that a question as to the interpretation or the application of the Constitution has arisen in the proceedings before it.

    “After forming such opinion it is the court that will also refer the question that has arisen to the Court of Appeal. There is nothing in section 295(2) of the Constitution conferring those functions on any of the parties in the proceedings.

    “The only role a party can play is to make a request to the trial court for the reference of any such questions, on the interpretation or application of the Constitution, to the Court of Appeal

    “In this case, I cannot remember when the court had come to the conclusion or formed any opinion that a question as to the interpretation or application of the Constitution had arisen in these proceedings let alone making any reference of such questions to the Court of Appeal for consideration.

    “I can also not remember when any of the parties in this case had made a request for the reference of any question as to the interpretation of the Constitution to the Court of Appeal to warrant any such reference in accordance with the provisions of section 295(2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

    “In all sincerity, the procedure adopted by the defendant to challenge the ruling of the court delivered on June 15, 2017 cannot be described as reference of a question as to the interpretation of the Constitution contemplated in section 305(1)(a) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015.”

    “What the defendant has done, as stated earlier, is a challenge of the ruling delivered on June 15, 2017, by way of an appeal.

    “It is therefore my humble view that it is only after the provision of section 305(1)(a) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act  has been strictly adhered to regarding reference to the Court of Appeal of any question as to the interpretation of the Constitution that the defendant can avail himself of the right to bring an application for adjournment as provided in the section.

    “By the wording of Section 306 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), the Act has taken away the power of the court to even entertain an application to stay proceedings in a criminal matter before it

    “This, therefore means that any relief, however couched in an application that has the effect of staying proceedings in a criminal matter before a court will not be entertained,” Justice Mohammed said.

    He adjourned further proceedings in the case to January 17 next year.

    Dasuki’s lawyer, Ahmed Raji (SAN) had, while arguing the motion on October 17 this year, urged the court to adjourn the trial indefinitely pending the determination of his client’s motion for stay of proceedings filed before the Court of Appeal along with an appeal against the June 15 ruling of the court.

    Raji drew a distinction between his client’s motion filed under Section 305 of ACJA and the one prohibited under Section 306 of the Act.

    He said his client’s motion did not seek stay of proceedings prohibited under Section 306 of ACJA, but was brought under Section 305 of ACJA, which allows the court to adjourn a trial after a constitutional question, arising from the trial, has been referred to a higher court for determination.

    Raji argued that his client’s appeal filed against the ruling delivered by Justice Mohammed on June 15, 2017, permitting prosecution’s witnesses to testify behind screen, was a form of reference of a constitutional question to the Court of Appeal.

    He said since Dasuki has filed a motion before the appellate court for the stay of proceedings in the trial, and the appeal entered, it was the tradition that the lower court awaits the decision of the higher court.

    Lawyer to the prosecution, Dipo Okpeseyi (SAN) said the motion amounted to an abuse of court process

    Okpeseyi argued that the motion was founded on a non-existing premise because no constitutional question had been referred by the court to the Court of Appeal, adding that what Dasuki merely filed was a notice of appeal against the ruling of the court.

    He said the appeal filed by Dasuki did not qualify as a referral which was the basis for the application.

    Okpeseyi contended that the motion was seeking an order of stay of proceedings, although Raji attempted to cover it up by using flowery words.

    He noted that the Supreme Court had ruled that an order of stay of proceedings in a criminal matter was ungrantable.

    Justice Mohammed’s ruling yesterday upheld Okpeseyi’s argument.