EFCC Vs Yahaya Bello: Court Adjourns To January 21 For Ruling Or Arraignment

LAGOS – A Federal High Court in Abuja has adjourned hearing in the money laundering case brought against the immediate-past Governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello, by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, to January 21, 2025.

At the resumed hearing on Wednesday, Counsel to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, told Justuce Emeka Nwite that he had two witnesses already in court.

He said his first application was to formally apply that the court should enter a plea of not guilty on behalf of the defendant, even in his absence.

“My first application is to formally enter a plea of not guilty to the defendant, even in his absence. The second point is, not withstanding his physical absence, it is in full compliance with Section 276 of ACJA.

“Flowing from that entry my lord, it is a humble request that we call the first witness,” he stated.

Pinheiro, SAN, in defending his application to enter a plea of not guilty for the defendant, said “the right to plead guilty or not guilty is a right that can be waved by the defendant.

“My lord should hold that the defendant has waved that right.

“What prejudice will the defendant suffer if my lord enters a plea of guilty or not guilty in his absence? Even if he was in court and pleaded not guilty, the situation will still be the same. The entry of plea of not guilty by your lordship is an invitation to the prosecution to come and prove the veracity of the allegations,” he added.

Michael Adoyi, who appeared for the defendant, however kicked against this, saying that the Prosecution’s application was made contrary to a subsisting order of the judge.

“Our first point of response to the application made by the learned senior counsel to the complainant is that the application is made contrary to the subsisting order of this honourable court, even made this morning – that no application can be entertained by this court in the absence of the arraignment of the defendant.

“The prosecution has stated severally that the court cannot demonstrate helplessness. The court cannot demonstrate any helplessness in any proceeding and if at all helplessness exists in this proceeding, that helplessness is demonstrated by the prosecution,” he said.

Adoyi argued that the court, in a criminal trial, is immune and distinct from the prosecution.

Citing Supreme Court verdicts on similar matters, he said, “The application made by learned senior counsel for the complainant this morning is a dangerous invitation to this honourable court to aide the prosecution in the performance of its duty of presenting the defendant before the court for arraignment and subsequent trial.”

He argued that civil proceeding was different from criminal proceeding.

The Defendant’s Counsel noted that the prosecution’s application could not be anchored on any of the provisions of the ACJA, 2015 that he had cited, as “those provisions do not excuse the need for physical presence of the defendant.”

“In view of this, we urge my lord to refuse the application made by the senior counsel to the complainant,” he said.

The Prosecution Counsel, however, told the court to dismiss Adoyi’s arguments and go ahead with his ruling on entering a plea of not guilty for the Defendant.

Justice Nwite, however, said it might not be possible to deliver the ruling this year.

“It may not be possible to deliver this ruling this year. You know I am just coming as vacation judge. So what are we agreeing on now learner silk?” he asked.

Pinheiro said the matter would be for ruling and/or arraignment of the defendant.

The Judge thereafter adjourned to 21st January, 2025 for ruling on the application by the EFCC and/or arraignment.

Recall that, at the last hearing on September 25, the Counsel to the defendant, A.M. Adoyi, had told the court that the issue of arraignment of the defendant was the subject matter of an appeal entered by the defendant at the Supreme Court with the Appeal Number: “SC/CR/847/2024 and SC/CR/848/2024”.

He said the most appropriate thing to do was to await the decision of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid appeal before taking any step for arraignment so as not to pull the rug off the feet of the Supreme Court.