An Abuja High Court friday dismissed an
application by the chairman and the
secretary of the House of Representatives
ad hoc committee on subsidy probe, Farouk
Lawan and Emenalo Boniface respectively,
to quash the charges of receiving $620,000
from businessman, Femi Otedola to
influence the report of the committee in
favour of Zenon Oil and Gas Limited.
Justice Mudashiru Oniyangi held that the
two accused persons had a case to answer
in the alleged $620,000 bribery charge.
Justice Oniyangi held that going by Section
185 (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the
prosecution needed not attach the
witnesses’ statements adding that the only
process provided for to be attached was
the proof of evidence.
He added that non- attachment of the
witnesses’ statements does not make the
charge incompetent.
His Lordship said: “Even though I agree that
the witness statement is not attached but I
disagree that its non-attachment vitiates
the charge. Where a statute provides for the
manner in which a process should be filed,
such manner must be followed; applicant’s
counsel has a misconception of Section 185
(b).
“On that note, I hold that the court has
jurisdiction to entertain, hear and
determine the suit.”
On the argument that no prima facie case
had been established against the accused
persons, the court held that “a prima facie
case arises once there are circumstances
that can justify that an accused person have
committed an offence and he should be put
on trial.
“Once there is evidence that will suggest
that the accused has an explanation to
make to the court on a matter, then there is
a prima facie case.”
Justice Oniyangi further held that having
read the proof of evidence and the written
statements of the accused persons, it was
clear that a prima facie case had been
established against them which they need
to answer.
“The prosecution has presented sufficient
materials before the court to warrant the
grant of the leave to prefer charges against
the accused persons,” he added.
Ruling on the submission that the case was
an abuse of court process, the trial judge
held that there were sufficient materials
before him to warrant the grant of the
leave to prefer charges against the two
accused persons.
He said: “The court cannot turn around
here to say the materials brought by the
prosecution constitute an abuse of court
process.
“The complaints of the applicants have no
legal bases; the charge brought by the
applicant does not amount to an abuse of
court process.”
Justice Oniyangi with the consent of the
parties adjourned till June 19 for hearing
and ordered that the bail of the accused
persons should continue.
Lawan and Emenalo had asked the court to
quash the charges of receiving $620,000
from businessman, Femi Otedola to
influence the report of the committee in
favour of Zenon Oil and Gas Limited.
Their lawyer, Rickey Tarfa, SAN said that the
court ought not to have granted the
application for leave to prefer the charges
because the prosecution failed to provide
adequate materials necessary for the judge
to exercise his discretion to grant the
application.
Arguing the application to quash the
charges, Tarfa asked the court to discharge
the accused since no primafacie case had
been made against them.
He argued that the foundation of the case
against them was not legally laid.
According to him, the prosecutor failed to
comply with the provisions of section 155
(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code which
required that statements of witnesses be
attached to the application to prefer
charges.
Although the trial was schedule to
commence yesterday, Tarfa argued that the
court must first hear and determine the
application to quash the charges.
He said that the application to quash the
charges also challenged the jurisdiction of
the court to conduct the trial.
Responding, the prosecutor, Chief
Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN asked the court
to dismiss the application even as he
described it as a tactic to waste the time of
the court.
According to him, the Supreme Court had
held in many cases that the purpose of
seeking for leave of court’s to prefer
charges was to ensure that frivolous
criminal charges were not filed and not to
allow the accused persons to see the details
of the charges against them. He said that
the charges remained valid adding that
non-attachment of witnesses’ statement did
not vitiate the legality of the charges.
No comments:
Post a Comment