Justice
Hussein Baba-Yusuf of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court sitting in
Maitama, Abuja, on Monday berated Joseph Daudu, SAN, counsel to a former
National Security Adviser, Sambo Dasuki over his attempt to further stall the
trial of Mr. Dasuki and four others.
Mr.
Dasuki (first defendant), alongside Shuaibu Salisu, a former Director of
Finance and Administration in the 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 of money laundering and criminal breach of trust to the tune of N13,
570,000, 000.00( Thirteen Billion, Five Hundred and Seventy Million Naira).
Mr.
Daudu, who was represented by Adeola Adedipe at the last adjourned date, May
23, 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 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, Mr. 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.
Mr.
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,
Mr. 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.
Mr.
Jacobs, who said Mr. 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.’’
JusticeBaba-Yusuf, who was obviously miffed by Mr. 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, Mr. Daudu interjected that he would not mind if the matter was
re-assigned.
Reacting
to Mr. 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.’’
0 comments:
Post a Comment