The Abuja division of the Federal High Court yesterday declined the request by the immediate past governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello, to stay further proceedings in the money laundering charge brought against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
During yesterday’s proceedings, tension arose in the courtroom as two Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SAN) engaged in a heated exchange. This altercation forced the judge to retire into his chambers temporarily. The two involved were counsel to the ex-governor, Abdulwahab Mohammed (SAN), and the prosecution counsel, Kemi Pinheiro (SAN).
Justice Emeka Nwite, displeased with the conduct of the defence counsel, Abdulwahab Mohammed (SAN) and Adeola Adedipe (SAN), stated that he would refer them to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) for possible disciplinary actions. Despite the appeal filed by Bello, the court adjourned proceedings to September 25, 2024, for his arraignment.
Mohammed, counsel to the former governor, informed the court that they had filed an application for stay of proceedings pending the determination of the appeal before the Court of Appeal on an arrest warrant earlier granted by the trial court and other rulings. Mohammed argued that the court could not proceed on the matter until the pending appeal was resolved, citing relevant authorities.
He also expressed dissatisfaction with the treatment of his colleague at the last hearing, stating, “Your lordship is functus officio”. Mohammed argued that no harm would come from staying proceedings until the Court of Appeal’s decision, emphasizing, “We are relying on the provision of the Constitution which overrides the EFCC Act, which the prosecution is relying on”.
However, EFCC’s Counsel, Kemi Pinhero, SAN, opposed the application. He argued that the defendant had not provided any Court of Appeal document indicating that the lower court should stay proceedings. The trial Judge, Justice Emeka Nwite, then questioned whether continuing the proceedings would be inappropriate given the pending appeal.
“Won’t it amount to judicial rascality to continue this case when there’s an issue of jurisdiction?”, the judge asked.
Pinheiro responded, “It is not really an issue of jurisdiction”, adding that filing an affidavit alone could not justify staying proceedings as the case was not a civil one. He urged the court to focus on the ruling based on the arguments presented on June 27.
Abdulwahab Mohammed, SAN, told the court that the judge had been misled on June 27, and requested that the proceedings of that day be expunged.
“They are asking your lordship to undo the work of the Court of Appeal. To avoid controversy, and, in order not to render the appeal nugatory, this should not continue. Even if Yahaya Bello were to be here, you cannot arraign him,” he argued.
“The affidavit filed on 16th July 2024, is to bring to your lordship’s attention the notices of appeal filed against your lordship’s ruling on 23rd April and 10th May. This appeal was transmitted to the Court of Appeal on 23rd of May and appellant’s brief of argument was filed on the 31st of May. Motion for stay has also been filed at the Court of Appeal. The two appeals basically challenge the jurisdiction of this court to entertain the charges ab initio.
“We urge your lordship to expunge the record of the proceedings on 27th June because, at that time, an appeal had been entered and the proceedings should not have happened. The court was functus officio,” Abdulwahab argued. He said, “insisting on hearing the matter would bring his lordship into conflict with the Court of Appeal”.
Pinheiro, in his submission, stated that “one of the appeals sought to have His Lordship stay further proceedings until the determination of the appeal”.
He noted that the judge was bound by his own rulings and therefore had the discretion to determine whether to proceed or not, pointing out that the first authority cited by the Defendant’s Counsel was a 1999 case that predated the EFCC Act 2004.
“This same position was canvassed on behalf of Mustapha, SAN, in a 2016 case, Mustapha v FRN, and the court held that proceedings can only be stayed where there is a Court of Appeal order to that effect and they relied on Section 306 of ACJA. In Chukwuma v IGP, a 2018 case, the court held something similar,” he submitted.
Responding on a point of law, Abdulwahab said: “We have two notices of appeal – one is on mixed law and fact, and the other is on jurisdiction. The authorities he has cited are different from jurisdiction. Chukwuma v IGP is on admissibility of documents and not jurisdiction.
“In Chief Cletus Ibeto v FRN, which is an ongoing criminal appeal, all the facts are on all fours with the recent case. The lower court stayed proceedings because of the issue of jurisdiction and, now, the argument at the court of appeal is on Section 306. That is how it is supposed to be.”
In his ruling, Justice Nwite said: “The grant of stay of proceedings is at the court’s discretion, and since it is an issue of discretion, no one can give an authority for the judge to rely on. The judge only needs to exercise this power judicially.”
The judge, who had earlier asked whether it would not amount to judicial rascality to continue the case when there was an issue of jurisdiction, changed his position. He noted that the defendant wanted to use the appeal to delay proceedings.
He mentioned previous Court of Appeal judgments on similar matters. The judge also granted the application for the withdrawal of the defendant’s counsel, Adeola Adedipe, SAN, from the case. Additionally, he referred the matter of professional misconduct by the two defendants’ counsel to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) to investigate possible infractions. Justice Nwite concluded by stating, “The question is whether there was an undertaking by Abdulwahab and Adedipe, SAN, which was breached to amount to contempt of court.”
