*Says Yahaya Bello’s Objections to N80 Billion Money Laundering Charges Lack Merit
The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja has dismissed two appeals by former Kogi State Governor Mr. Yahaya Bello seeking to halt his arraignment by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission on an N80 billion money laundering charge.
A three-man panel of the court comprising Justice H. A. Barka, Justice S. A. Bola, and Justice I. K. Amadi ordered Bello to obey the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) and present himself for arraignment, affirming the ruling of the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja.
The appellate court, in a unanimous decision read by Justice Amadi, agreed with the submission of the prosecution’s lead counsel Dr. Kemi Pinheiro SAN and held that both of Bello’s appeals lacked merit.
Bello is scheduled for arraignment before Justice Emeka Nwite on nine counts of money laundering involving over N80 billion, which he allegedly diverted from the Kogi State Government’s treasury.
However, since filing the charges, the EFCC has not been able to bring him to court.
Bello went into hiding and snubbed five court sessions scheduled for his arraignment on 18 April, 23 April, 10 May, 13 June, and 27 June, mostly by filing several applications challenging, among others, the EFCC and the court’s power to arraign him.
He also filed appeals challenging the court’s orders insisting on his arraignment.
But the justices held that Bello’s Preliminary Objection to the charge was not sustainable.
On the appeal for service of charge and bundle of proof of evidence on the Lead Counsel, the Appeal Court was of the view that the issue of service is of law which requires no leave to appeal; hence, the Preliminary Objection was discountenanced.
On the issue of service of charge, the Court was of the view that the constitutional provision that an accused person be informed of the charge against him did not specify how the information should be communicated to the Defendant.
“What is more, Section 379 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) allows service on the Defendant or his legal practitioner,” Justice Amadi held.
The court was also of the view that the Defendant became aware of the charge already; hence, his briefing his legal team.
“In view of this, the Appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. The decision of the lower court directing service on the Appellant’s lead counsel is thus affirmed,” the court added.
The court then made an order pursuant to Section 396(2) of ACJA restraining the Appellant from taking any further step/action in the matter until he presents himself for arraignment in the Charge.
The second appeal was similarly decided with the court deciding in the EFCC’s favour, the appeal against the ruling of the lower court that no application of the Appellant would be entertained until he presented himself for arraignment.
On the preliminary Objection, the court was of the view that grounds 5 and 6 of the Notice of Appeal (NOA) contained issues of law; hence, no leave was required. The Preliminary Objection was thus discountenanced.
The Court in addressing the main appeal held that in view of section 396(2) of ACJA, “no objection to the validity of the charge shall be entertained until arraignment of the defendant.”
The Appeal was consequently dismissed.
The court further ordered that “the Appellant shall obey the provision of section 396(2) of ACJA by presenting himself for arraignment before taking any further step in the charge.”