On Thursday, the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court dismissed an application by ex-Governor Willie Obiano challenging the EFCC’s powers to prosecute him.
Ruling on an application filed by Mr Obiano challenging his trial on Thursday, Justice Inyang Ekwo said the application lacked merit and deserved to be dismissed.
The judge faulted and rejected all the grounds upon which Mr Obiano predicated his application.
He said the court would not know whether the former governor was linked to the alleged offences unless the trial was conducted in accordance with the law.
The judge held that the issue under contention was whether the state’s security votes were paid from the federation account, and so the prosecution had a valid case.
“As long as the EFCC Act has not been declared unconstitutional, this court cannot stop the implementation of the act. The powers of the EFCC ought to be a question of law and has bearing in the 1999 Constitution.
“State security votes come from the federation account making the development a constitutional issue.
“This court has no powers to preempt the case of the prosecution, ” the judge said.
Ruling on the issue of proof of evidence, the judge said that the Federal High Court was a court of summary jurisdiction in criminal proceedings. He held that summary jurisdiction excused the use of proof of evidence prior to the commencement of trial.
He also said the Supreme Court had determined in favour of the EFCC the appeal filed by the Anambra government, which the defendant referenced.
He, however, said the provisions of the constitution through which the application was brought had no bearing on the case, adding, “I find at this point that none of the provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) upon which the applicant relied on in his application, has any bearing on this case.”
In his final analysis, the judge said he was thinking about making an order to dismiss the application.
Following the ruling, counsel to Mr Obiano, Onyechi Ikpeazu, moved an application requesting the release of his client’s international passport to enable him to travel abroad for medical treatment.
“This is based on the health condition and medical appointments of the defendant. His treatments usually last sixty day. He will comply with the conditions set by my lord,“ Mr Ikpeazu said.
Counsel to the EFCC, Sylvanus Tahir, said that the prosecution was not opposing the application even though expressed reservations about the 60 days required for treatment.
Mr Tahir said, “We are not opposed to the application but we have issues with the 60 days because the trial has been truncated already.”
The judge was willing to grant the application but said that the former governor must return his international passport to the court’s registrar upon his return.
He adjourned the matter until June 24, 25, 26, 27 for trial to start.
Mr Obiano, who was arraigned on January 24, is standing trial on a nine-count charge bordering on alleged N4 billion fraud. The former governor then filed an application challenging the EFCC’s powers to prosecute him.
He prayed the court to quash the instant charges against him, describing them as an abuse of court process. Mr Obiano also held that no prima facie case had been established against him.
He claimed there was no connection between the proof of evidence supplied to the court by EFCC and the accusations against him. He averred that there was no testimony from any witness indicating that he issued directives for the disbursement of security votes and other funds belonging to the Anambra State government.
Mr Obiano also claimed that he could not be held accountable for any alleged unlawful actions by officials of the Anambra government as there is no concept of vicarious liability in the criminal justice system.
His motion on notice was brought pursuant to section 6 (6) (a) and (b) and section 36(6) (6) b of the 1999 constitution as amended and section 1(1) & (2), 266, 271(b), 383(4) &492 (3) of the Administration of the Criminal Justice Act 2015.
Among others, Mr Obiano sought an order of the court quashing the instant charge for it amounts to flagrant abuse of judicial process and a mockery of the criminal justice and “an order quashing the charge for non-disclosure of a prime facie case being vague and devoid of precision in respect of all the nine-count charges.”
(NAN)
