Justice Hussein Baba-Yusuf of the Federal
Capital Territory (FCT) High Court sitting in Maitama, Abuja, on Monday, June
6, 2016 told off the counsel to a former National Security Adviser, Col. Sambo
Dazuki (retd.), J.B. Daudu, SAN, over his attempt to further stall the trial of
Dasuki and four others.
Dasuki( first defendant) alongside Shuaibu Salisu, a former Director of Finance and Administration, Office of the National Security Adviser; Aminu Babakusa, a former General Manager, Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation; Acacia Holdings Limited and Reliance Referral Hospital Limited are being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, on a 19-count charge bordering on money laundering and criminal breach of trust to the tune of N13, 570,000, 000.00( Thirteen Billion, Five Hundred and Seventy Million Naira).
Daudu, who was represented by Adeola Adedipe at
the last adjourned date, May 23, 2016, had urged the court to adjourn the trial
of his client sine die on the grounds that the prosecution had frustrated
the order of the court given on April 6, 2016 to provide adequate facility for
him to be briefed by his client.
Ruling on the matter, Justice Baba-Yusuf had consequently ordered that the first defendant be brought to the court premises during business hours between Monday and Friday to allow him brief his counsel.
However, at the resumed hearing today, Daudu
told the court that he was not ready to proceed with the trial.
He told the court that he had filed a motion
asking that the prosecution consolidate the charges involving the first
defendant before Justice Baba-Yusuf and Justice Peter Afem of the FCT High
Court.
According to him, ‘‘It is unconstitutional to
try the defendant over a similar matter before two different FCT High Courts.’’
Counsels to the other defendants also
acknowledged receipt of the motion, but did not object to the commencement of
the trial today.
However, in his reaction, prosecuting counsel,
Rotimi Jacobs, SAN, stated that it was not right for the court to hear the
motion.
Jacobs, who also confirmed receipt of the motion
by the counsel to the first defendant, said: ‘‘There are other parties in
the other suit that are put on notice. Those parties have not shown up
(in court today) or served the motion. In fact, there is no date on the
motion indicating when the other parties in the other suit should appear before
your Lordship, even if they have been served. Their absence is
understandable.’’
Quoting Section 396, Sub-section 1 and 2 of the
Administration of Criminal Justice Act, Jacobs said counsel to the first
defendant could file the motion, but the court would only decide on it at the
end of the trial.
Jacobs, who said Daudu had raised an issue over
the validity of the charge before the court, further said that ‘‘the defendant
has filed three objections with the intention to stall the trial and frustrate
the day-to- day trial of the case.
‘‘After the court ordered at the last adjourned
date that the first defendant be brought to court to brief his counsel,
his counsel insisted that he was not going to have any meeting with his client,
thereby showing that he is not interested in the commencement of the trial.
‘‘Though counsel to the first defendant is
asking that the charges be consolidated, each matter will still retain its
separate identity.
‘‘The prayer is self-defeating. Besides, the
second file is not before this court. So, they should apply to the Chief Judge
to transfer the other matter to this court. Or will my Lord decide on a matter
that is not before him?
‘‘My Lord, I urge you to compel us to proceed with
this trial. Enough of time wasting tactics by the first defendant.’’
Justice Baba-Yusuf, who was obviously miffed by
Daudu’s argument, initially said he would go into the trial today.
According to him, ‘‘You should go to the other
court and ask that the case be struck out, since this case had first been filed
before me. I am going into the trial today.
‘‘I have granted you enough respect. So, what
you asking for is an insult on me. If you have a court where people dance to
your music, go there. As the matter is, I will give the file to the Chief Judge
for re-assignment...’’
At that point, Daudu interjected that he would
not mind if the matter was re-assigned.
Reacting to Daudu’s statement, Justice
Baba-Yusuf further said: ‘‘People come to court with dishonest motive. I knew
this was going to happen. This is what you do.’’
Counsel to the second defendant, Shuaibu
Salisu, Akin Olujimi, SAN, pleaded with Justice Baba-Yusuf to
adjourn the case to enable all parties involved ‘‘ to sort out things
among ourselves.’’
Consequently, Justice Baba-Yusuf adjourned to
June 15, 2016 for hearing on the motion filed by counsel to the defence
counsel.
Wilson Uwujaren
Head, Media & Publicity
6th June, 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment