Justice Maryann Anenih of the Federal Capital Territory High Court in Maitama, Abuja, has scheduled a new date for the arraignment of the defendants, including the former Governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello, for November 14.
This decision follows the issuance of a summons by the Court regarding the 16-count charges filed against Bello by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.
The prosecution counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), requested the adjournment and noted that during the previous session, the court had ordered a public summons for the first defendant, Bello, to be published and the charges to be displayed.
However, Justice Anenih clarified that her directive was solely for the summons to be published, not for the charges to be posted.
Oyedepo indicated his expectation that the first defendant would be present in court on November 14, referencing the 30-day period stipulated in the summons, and thus requested the adjournment for the arraignment of all three defendants.
In contrast, JB Daudu (SAN), counsel for the second defendant, objected, asserting that the case was already set for arraignment. He argued that if the prosecution was unprepared to present the charges to the defendants, they should be released, especially since they have been in custody for over a month.
He noted that the defendants are independent individuals and should not be held accountable for the absence of one.
“My Lord, we are here for arraignment. I don’t think the prosecution should use them as a shield as they are individually here on their own. I will ask for their discharge if he (the prosecution) is not ready for arraignment. We either take plea or their discharge.
“You cannot be using somebody as a human shield when they are not in hostage. I don’t like this practice,” he said.
The counsel to the 3rd defendant, A.M. Aliyu (SAN), agreed with the submission of the 2nd defendant’s counsel, adding that he would be asking the court to take his client’s application for bail.
“In the alternative, my Lord, I have filed an application for bail which was duly served on the complainant,” he said.
Oyedepo, however, asserted that the bail application could not be considered due to the nature of the charge being a joint one. He noted that it includes multiple counts of conspiracy.
He emphasized the necessity for the court to postpone proceedings until November 14.
Additionally, he mentioned that the defence counsel had submitted an application to the EFCC regarding the enforcement of the fundamental rights of the second defendant, indicating that the oral application should not be addressed at this time.
Conversely, the counsel for the second defendant, Daudu, maintained that this approach contravenes the principles of fair hearing.
He said, “Fundamental human right is not about freedom alone but fair hearing. I urge my Lord to take a global look at the matter. They left their family for over a month now.
“We urge the court to release the two on bail and that keeping them will not have any impact on the case.
“His argument is persuasive but does not go by what the law says. That is until one individual appears before they can be arraigned. I don’t understand this kind of practice.
“It is an affront to fair hearing because the privilege of fair hearing allows us to raise any issue. Keeping them for 10 years will have no impact.
“They have enjoyed administrative bail before with the EFCC, so it won’t hurt their pride if they give it to them.”
The 2nd defendant’s counsel also asked for a date for a fundamental rights application for his client.
After taking the submissions of the parties involved, Justice Anenih rejected the defendants’ oral application for bail.
She ordered the defendants to come with a formal application as their oral application was not accepted.
She said, “I have considered your application for bail; it is noted that, as rightly stated by the prosecution, the defendants are at liberty to make proper application for bail in this court; otherwise, the oral application made today is hereby refused.”
She subsequently adjourned to November 14 and 20 for the response of the 1st defendant to summons and/or arraignment.
