Justice Babatunde O. Quadri of the Federal High Court, Maitama, Abuja on Wednesday, May 3, 2017 adjourned hearing on an application by Joe Agi, SAN, counsel to Sule Lamido, former governor of Jigawa State, urging the court to return the N1.35billion fraud charge instituted against the former governor by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, back to the former trial judge, Justice Adeniyi Ademola, for continuation of trial.
The case is adjourned to May 11, 2017.
Lamido is facing a 27-count charge alongside his sons: Aminu Sule Lamido; Mustapha Sule Lamido; Aminu Wada Abubakar and their companies, Bamaina Holdings Limited and Speeds International Limited.
He allegedly abused his position as governor between 2007 and 2015 by awarding contracts to companies where he had interest, using his two sons as fronts.
The prosecution had called 18 witnesses before the case ran to a halt following the suspension of Justice Ademola, by the National Judicial Council, NJC, for alleged breach of professional ethics.
The case was subsequently reassigned to Justice Quadri for trial to start de novo.
However, attempt of the EFCC to re-arraign Lamido and his co-defendants slated for April 26, 2017, was stalled with an application by Agi, who is urging the Chief Judge of Nigeria, CJN, to return the case to Justice Ademola following his (Ademola) acquittal by Justice Jude Okeke on the corruption charges preferred against him by the federal government.
Justice Quadri, in the circumstance, adjourned to today for hearing on the motion.
At the resumed hearing, the matter was further adjourned to enable the defence time to respond to objection raised by the prosecution in its counter affidavit which was filed shortly before the court started sitting. Another reason the judge gave for the adjournment was the marked absence of first defendant (Lamido) in court.
Agi had earlier argued that, it was in the interest of justice and fair hearing to hear his application, which he said was brought pursuant to Section 98 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015.
On why Lamido was not present in court, the learned silk said that the first defendant was being detained in Dutse prison for alleged incitement.
“Lamido was invited by the AIG on Sunday, April 30, 2017 and on getting there he was detained”, Agi said.
He added that the other defendants who are his children were with him hoping to stand surety for him and couldn’t get flights to come for their trial.
Citing Section 266 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, Agi also argued that, “where a defendant is challenging jurisdiction, he is not bound to appear before the court.”
Responding, Chile Okoroma, representing the EFCC, argued that “a defendant cannot stay away and challenge the jurisdiction of the court. He has to be present”.
He added that, “trial commences upon arraignment. The issue of interlocutory application becomes relevant only when plea is taken. What is before the court at this stage is a pre-trial application”.
While opposing the application for the return of the case to Justice Ademola, Okoroma argued that, “Justice Ademola and Joe Agi, SAN, had been jointly prosecuted for corruption related offence. Even though, they are acquitted, there is still a level of bonding.”
“Even if they are discharged and acquitted fairly, there is still likelihood of bias, since they are familiar with each other. It is better if a different judge tries the case”, Okoroma submitted.
