A-Court quashes Akingbola's N47.1bn theft charge
(Nigeria) The Court of Appeal in Lagos, on Wednesday, struck
out a N47.1 billion theft charge against former Managing Director of
Intercontinental Bank Plc, Erastus Akingbola.
Akingbola was charged by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, alongside Bayo Dada, General Manager of Probics Securities Ltd, before a Lagos High Court in Ikeja.
Akingbola was charged by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, alongside Bayo Dada, General Manager of Probics Securities Ltd, before a Lagos High Court in Ikeja.
They were charged on 22 counts bordering on stealing and
obtaining money by false pretences.
The appellants had through their counsel, Chief Wole
Olanipekun, SAN and Prof. Taiwo Osipitan, SAN, challenged the jurisdiction of
the court to entertain the charge preferred against them.
The trial court judge, Justice Lateef Lawal-Akapo, had,
however, in a ruling delivered on May 2, 2014, dismissed their applications and
held that it was competent to entertain the charges preferred against the
appellants.
The lower court had then assumed jurisdiction in the matter.
Dissatisfied with the ruling of the court, the appellants
had filed two separate appeals, urging the appellate court to set aside the
decision of the lower court.
The appellate court, in a unanimous decision on Wednesday,
allowed the appeal on the grounds that the subject matter of the alleged
offences related to banking operations and capital issues, which fell under the
jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Amina Augie, held that
the lower court judge took a narrow view of the issue, when it assumed
jurisdiction on the case.
Augie held that the lower court judge erred when he failed
to take notice of the decision of the appellate court in the case of Okey Nwosu
vs EFCC, even when it was brought to his notice.
The judge noted that the appellate court had in Okey Nwosu’s
case held that the Ikeja High Court, Lagos, where the charges were instituted
against the defendants, had no jurisdiction over capital market-related issues.
Augie held that the refusal of the lower court to abide by
the principle of Stare decisis, was tantamount to judicial rascality, adding
that it would encourage the lower court to take up arms against the appellate
court.
The court held that the subject matter of the alleged
offences related to banking operations and capital market issues, which was
outside the jurisdiction of the Lagos High Court.
It, therefore, held that the lower court failed in its duty
as an unbiased umpire when it refused to study thoroughly the processes
presented before it.
NAN recalls that Olanipekun had earlier in his submission,
urged the court to allow the appeal and set aside the decision of the lower
court.
He had argued that the trial judge erred in law when he
assumed jurisdiction over the charge before him, in the face of clear
provisions of Section 251 of the Constitution and Section 8(1) of the Federal
High Court Act.
Olanipekun submitted that Section 251 of the Constitution
vested exclusive jurisdiction in the Federal High Court over the subject
matter, stressing that Section 272(1) of the Constitution which provided for
the jurisdiction of the State high court was subject to Section 251.
He further submitted that the lower court erred in law and
came to a perverse decision in its interpretation and application of the word
‘’also’’, as used in Section 251(3) of the constitution.
Olanipekun told the court that there was a similar charge
involving Akingbola and the EFCC, which he said was currently pending before
the Federal High Court in Lagos.
He had also argued that the main witnesses listed in the
proof of evidence at the Federal High Court were the same witnesses also listed
in the proof of evidence before the court.
The appellate court's judgment was also adopted by Justice
Samuel Oseji and Justice Abimbola Obaseki-Adejumo.
Comments
Post a Comment