Former Governor of Kogi State, Alhaji Yahaya Bello, has expressed his readiness to appear before the Federal High Court in Abuja to respond to the 19-counts leveled against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.
Although Bello was absent for his arraignment, he briefed a team of lawyers who addressed the court on his behalf on Tuesday.
A member of his legal team, Mr. Adeola Adedipe, SAN, informed the court that his client would have appeared for the proceedings but was apprehensive about being arrested.
“The defendant wants to come to court but he is afraid that there is an order of arrest hanging over his head,” Adedipe, SAN, submitted.
Consequently, he urged the court to set aside the ex parte order of arrest earlier issued against the former governor.
Adedipe, SAN, argued that at the time the order of arrest was issued, the charge had not been served on his client as required by the law.
“It was only at the resumed proceedings on Tuesday that the court approved substituted service of the charge on the defendant, through his lawyer. As at the time the warrant was issued, the order for substituted service had not been made. That order was just made this morning. A warrant of arrest should not be hanging on his neck when we leave this court,” counsel to the defendant added.
Furthermore, the ex-governor maintained that the EFCC is an illegal organization.
According to him, the Federal Government did not consult the 36 States of the federation before enacting the EFCC Act through the National Assembly.
“This is a very serious matter that borders on the constitution and the tenets of federalism. It has to be resolved because as it stands, the EFCC is an illegal organization,” Bello’s lawyer added.
However, EFCC’s lawyer, Mr. Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, urged the court to reject the application, insisting that the warrant of arrest should not be set aside until the defendant makes himself available for his trial.
“The defendant cannot stay in hiding and be filing numerous applications. He cannot ask for the arrest order to be vacated until and when the defendant is present in court for his arraignment. He cannot be heard on that applied application.
“Our position is that the defendant should be denied the right of being heard until he is physically present before this court.”
EFCC’s lawyer further argued that in line with section 396 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, the court could not effectively assume jurisdiction to decide any application or objection in the matter until the defendant is arraigned.
The anti-graft agency said it would not execute the arrest warrant if counsel to the defendant undertakes to ensure his presence on the next adjourned date.
“If he gives an undertaking that his client will be in court on the next date, I can assure him that the arrest warrant will not be executed.
“If he gives that assurance, as the prosecution, I will personally apply for the warrant to be discharged,” EFCC’s lawyer, Pinheiro, SAN, added.
EFCC informed the court that the Supreme Court had since settled the issue of its legality.
“The charge before this court is not against a state or House of Assembly, but against an individual who is said to have laundered public funds.
“It is against an individual who is said to have taken public funds to buy houses in Lagos, Maitama and also transferred funds to his accounts abroad,” EFCC added.
