A Federal High Court sitting in Ikoyi, Lagos, has confirmed that the arrest warrant for Mr. Ezekiel Onyedikachi, also known as Eezee, a former manager of gospel singer Mercy Chinwo, accused of fraudulently converting funds, is still valid.
Presiding over the case, Justice Alexander Owoeye upheld the warrant while adjourning the hearing of the criminal charges brought against Onyedikachi.
The court had initially granted the arrest warrant on January 16, following an ex-parte application filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
The gospel singer, Chinwo, alleged that Onyedikachi diverted approximately $345,000 in royalties due to her without remittance.
EFCC counsel, Mrs Bilikisu Buhari, informed the court that the prosecution had been unable to serve the charge on the defendant, who had been unreachable. Consequently, the court granted the application for an arrest warrant against Onyedikachi.
At the last adjourned date on January 24, the defence counsel, Dr. Monday Ubani (SAN), undertook to accept service of the charge on behalf of the defendant.
However, the defence counsel also informed the court of a preliminary objection challenging the charge.
The court had accordingly, adjourned the case for arraignment of the defendant.
At the resumption of proceedings on Monday, Ubani (SAN) announced an appearance for the defendant, while Mr Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN) appeared for the prosecution.
Ubani informed the court that the case ought to be for arraignment of the defendant, but that the defence had a notice of preliminary objection before the court. However, the judge, asked him a question “Where is the defendant?”
In response, he told the court that he received a call from the defendant, who said he had a terrible accident this morning and told the court that the defendant would be available at the next date.
When the defence counsel sought to move his objection, the court declined because he could not be heard, until the defendant appeared before the court.
Justice Owoeye held that the court had not assumed jurisdiction over the case, since the plea of the defendant had not been taken.
The prosecuting counsel on his part, described the procedure adopted by the defence as strange.
Citing provisions of sections 396(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, (ACJA) as well as judicial authorities of State Vs Achara and Frn Vs Yahaya Bello, he urged the court not to hear the defence.
“My lord, it is a show of shame and outright disrespect for this court, for the defendant to be absent on three different occasions in a criminal trial,” he said.
The prosecutor informed the court that shortly after the court rose at the last adjourned date, the defendant was seen within the court’s premises, granting a media interview.
He described same as a ‘shame and complete dishonour’ to the court for a defendant to exhibit such attitudes.
Besides, he told the court that if the defendant was indisposed as represented by counsel, then he ought to be deposed by way of affidavit, to be shown as proof before the court.
In the circumstance, Oyedepo prayed the court to issue a bench warrant to compel the attendance of the defendant before the court, adding that the same is important to protect the integrity of the court.
Although the defence counsel objected to the grant of a bench warrant by the court and undertook to personally produce the defendant on his honour, the prosecution argued that the defence’s honour or integrity was not an issue.
Oyedepo maintained that the court issued a legal instrument, compelling the appearance of the defendant.
In a short ruling, the court held that from its record, the earlier Bench Warrant by the court still subsisted as it had not been withdrawn.
The judge consequently, ordered the defendant to appear in court on the next adjourned date for his arraignment, either by the subsisting bench warrant or by production by his defence counsel.
Upon the agreement of counsel, the court adjourned the case to March 6, for the arraignment of the defendant.
