PDP Campaign Fund: Court to threatens Dakingari with arrest
*Former governor of Kebbi, Usman Dakingari
(Nigeria) The former governor of Kebbi, Usman Dakingari risk arrest by the Economic
and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, should he fail to honour the order of a
Federal High Court sitting in Kebbi to appear before it.
The order followed the failure of the former governor to
appear before the Court for his arraignment after being served with a fifteen
count charge on June 20, 2018 by the EFCC.
Dakingari is to be arraigned alongside three others, Sunday Dogonyaro, Abdullahi Yelwa and Garba Rabiu Kamba for
allegedly receiving a cash sum of N700million, part of the $115,000,000
allegedly distributed by a former Minister of Petroleum Resources, Deizani
Alison-Madueke to influence the 2015 general election.
On the last adjourned date, only the 4th defendant, Garba
Rabiu Kamba was in court, forcing the
court to issue an order of substituted service on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd
defendants. The order was duly executed by the prosecution on all three defendants.
Still, when the case was called today, the defendants were absent.
However, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants through their
counsel provided the court with explanations for their clients not appearing
before it.
Counsel for the 1st defendant, Ibrahim Mohammed, informed
the court that his client is still out of the country and he became aware of
the charge against him on the 20th day of June, 2018 after which he briefed
them to appear on his behalf to plead with the court to grant him seven days to
appear.
After pleading for an adjournment, the defence counsel moved
an application for preliminary objection which he filed on the 22nd of June,
2018. In his preliminary objection, the first defendant is challenging the
jurisdiction of the court to entertain the matter on grounds that the procedure
followed to serve his client violated the provision of rule 5 of the Federal
High Court Practice Direction, 2013.
The prosecution counsel, Johnson Ojogbane opposed the
preliminary objection orally. Ojogbane argued that, the 1st defendant does not
have right to raise any objection at
this stage.
Ojogbane supported his argument with section 396(1)(2) of
the Administration of Criminal Justice Act,
2015 which says all application may be raised after the plea of the
defendant has been taken.
“The defendant has right to bring any objection but such
objection can only be taken after plea
had been taken. The defendant in this case has not submitted himself to this
court. We urge my Lord to reject and dismiss the application in its entirety,” Ojogbane
submitted.
Ojogbane further submitted that, it is not correct where the
defence counsel said that his client only became aware of the charge on the
20th June. He reminded the court that in his motion ex parte, which the court
ruled on at the last adjourned date where the defendant was instructed to
appear in court, the prosecution had underlined the efforts to ensure the
defendant was served but the 1st defendant refused to honour invitation by the
commission.
On the issue of rule 5 of Federal High Court Practice
Direction, Ojogbane responded that section 382(5) of ACJA, being an Act of
Parliament, is superior to Practice Direction.
In his ruling, Justice Amobeda agreed with the prosecution
and dismissed the application.
Counsel for the 2nd defendant, Lagalo Dan Lagalo apologised to the court for
his client’s absence which according to
him was because his client, like the 1st defendant, is also not in the country.
Counsel for the 3rd defendant, A. Maidawa informed the court that his client
was not in court due to ill health which the prosecution also confirmed.
Consequently,
Ojogbane after thanking the court for a well grounded ruling, requested
it to invoke section 394 of ACJA for a
bench warrant to be issued on the 1st and 2nd defendants.
Both counsel for the 1st and 2nd defendants conceded the
fact that the court can invoke section 394 as prayed by the prosecution
counsel, but pleaded with the court for
leniency. They both however undertook to bring their clients before the court
on the 2nd of July, 2018 for arraignment.
After listening to the prayers of both parties, Justice
Amobeda adjourned the matter at the instance of the defendants and ordered
their counsels to bring them on July 2, 2018. He however warned that, failure
to bring the 1st and 2nd defendants would leave him no option but to invoke
section 394 of ACJA and issue a bench warrant for their arrest.
The case has been adjourned to July 2nd, 2018 for
arraignment.
Comments
Post a Comment