Justice Daniel Osiagor of a Federal High Court sitting in Ikoyi, Lagos on Thursday dismissed the application of Nenadi Usman, a former Minister of Finance and others seeking to strike out the charge preferred against them by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC.
Nenadi is standing trial alongside Femi Fani-Kayode, a former Minister of Aviation and Chairman of the 2015 Goodluck Jonathan Presidential Campaign Organisation over a N4.9bn fraud charge.
Also charged with them are a former National Chairman of the Association of Local Government of Nigeria (ALGON), Yusuf Danjuma and a company, Joint-Trust Dimensions Nigeria Limited.
At the resumed sitting, counsel to the first defendant, Chief Ferdinand Obie SAN moved an application praying the court to strike out the charges against the first defendant on the grounds that the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the charge. The motion dated July 6, 2021, and filed same day argued that the prosecution in the 17-count charge failed to specify the location within Nigeria where the alleged offences were committed. Obie cited the case of Belgore and Professor Abubakar vs EFCC where the Supreme Court struck out the charge involving the two applicants on the grounds that the Federal High Court of Lagos lacked the jurisdiction, while praying that same be granted to the application.
Counsel to the 2nd defendant, Norrison Quakers SAN also urged the court to allow the application stand and uphold the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Belgore and Professor Abubakar.
The 3rd and 4th defendant’s counsel, likewise aligned with the submissions of the learned Silk.
Responding, the prosecution counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo urges the court to hold the application was an abuse of court process.
Oyedepo argued that in Counts 15-17 of the charge, Lagos was mentioned as the location of the offence. He continued by saying that where a statute prescribes the mode of doing an act, then that mode must be sustained.
He further prayed that the court should dismiss the application and allow the plea of the defendants to be taken in line with the amended charge.
Justice Osiagor in a ruling, held that the lack of the location in Counts 1-14 of the charge makes the count defective, however it doesn’t take away the validity of the charge as Counts 15-17 have a location. He, therefore, dismissed the motion and called on defendants to take their plea.
The matter was adjourned to October 13, 14 & 15 for arraignment and trial.
Comments