BY VICTOR BUORO, ABUJA – The Court of Appeal, Sokoto Division on Tuesday September 26, 2017 dismissed two appeals entered by Mohammed Bello Abubakar against the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
The appeals were in respect of ruling delivered by the Federal High Court Sokoto presided over by Justice R.M Aikawa for the admissibility of some documents presented by the Commission in the trial of the appellant.
Abubakar had in two separate appeals, urged the court to set aside the lower court’s ruling which admitted some documents presented by the EFCC but the appeal court ruled it will not entertain any further interlocutory appeals until the matter is determined by the lower court.
The appellant, who is a serving Commissioner for Lands and Housing in Sokoto State, was arraigned by the Commission on April 7, 2014 alongside his brother, Abdullahi Abubakar and three companies before Justice Aikawa for alleged abuse of office while he was Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs and the second defendant, a Director in the same Ministry in the administration of the former Governor Aliyu Wamako.
The companies, charged alongside the two brothers, are Rose Gallery Nigeria Limited, Silver Spring Global Concept Limited and Sitex Multiservice Limited.
During the course of trial in January 2016, the prosecuting counsel, Sa’idu Atteh through PW1, presented documents that were objected to by counsel representing the defendants.
After listening to the arguments by the learned counsel on the admissibility of the documents, Justice Aikawa adjourned the matter for ruling which was delivered on March 10, 2016 with some documents admitted while others were rejected.
The first defendant being dissatisfied with the ruling, approached the Court of Appeal, Sokoto Division seeking for an order to set aside the ruling of the lower court.
In a ruling delivered by Justice Usaini Mukhtar, leading Justices Mohammed Lawal Shuaibu and Fredrick O. Oho, both appeals were dismissed and the appellant ordered to go back to the lower court for trial.
“If either party is not satisfied with final verdict of the lower court should then approach the Court of Appeal and make an appeal once and for all”, the court ruled.
The court relied upon Rule 4 (e) of the Practice Direction of the Court of Appeal (Fast Track) 2014, which discourages interlocutory appeals until the final verdict has been delivered by the trial court.
