On Thursday, the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court adjourned until April 23 to rule on an application by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) seeking a substituted service of the charge ex-Governor Yahaya Bello.
Justice Emeka Nwite fixed the date after counsel for the EFCC, Kemi Pinheiro, and the ex-governor’s lawyer, Abdulwahab Mohammed, presented their arguments for and against the oral application.
When the matter was called for the arraignment of Mr Bello on a 19-count money laundering charge preferred against him, the former governor was not in court.
However, his lawyers, including Adeola Adedipe, were in court.
Mr Mohammed, who announced his appearance for the ex-governor, challenged the validity of the charge on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter on the one hand and to have issued the arrest warrant against his client on the other hand.
He informed the court that a preliminary objection had already been filed before the court.
The lawyer, who urged the court to vacate the arrest warrant order, said a high court of Kogi had on February 9 restrained the anti-graft agency from arresting, detaining or prosecuting Mr Bello.
He said the ruling was on a fundamental rights suit filed by the former governor and that the EFCC was a party in the matter.
He added that two senior advocates representing the anti-graft agency in the instant charge were also in the matter.
Mr Mohammed said the EFCC challenged the order at the Court of Appeal, and the matter was already fixed for hearing.
He stressed that the arrest warrant the commission surreptitiously obtained from the court was an attempt to put the court on a collision course with the appellate court.
Mr Bello’s lawyer, who insisted that the issue of jurisdiction was a threshold that the court must address first, argued that the charge should not have been filed given the appeal.
Mr Mohammed disagreed with Pinheiro’s submission that the court should direct that he be served with the charge in the open court since he represented Mr Bello.
The senior lawyer said he was not authorised to receive the charge on his client’s behalf. He argued that if the commission could not serve Bello personally with the charge, they should formally apply so that the defendant could respond accordingly.
Besides, he insisted that their objection to the whole charge and the arrest warrant on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction had not been dealt with.
He urged the court to refuse EFCC’s application.
However, EFCC’s lawyer disagreed with Mr Mohammed’s submission. Mr Pinheiro said the matter was fixed for Mr Bello’s arraignment, and Mr Mohammed, having announced an appearance for the ex-governor, could be served in the open court for the matter to proceed.
Mr Nwite adjourned the matter until May 23 for a ruling on substituted service.
On Wednesday, the judge ordered that EFCC should be issued a warrant for the arrest of Bello despite the subsisting judgment by a Kogi high court restraining the commission from arresting, detaining, or prosecuting him.
The court had also ordered that the ex-governor be produced in court today (Thursday) for his arraignment.
(NAN)
