EFCC Vs Yahaya Bello: Court Adjourns For Ruling Or Arraignment Till January 21, 2025

A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, on Wednesday, October 30, 2024, adjourned hearing in the case of money laundering brought against the former governor of Kogi State, Alhaji Yahaya Bello by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), to January 21, 2025.

At the resumed hearing on Wednesday, Counsel to the EFCC, Mr Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, said he had two witnesses already in court, adding that his first application was to formally enter a plea of not guilty on behalf of the defendant, even in his absence.

Pinheiro said; “My first application is to formally enter a plea of not guilty for the defendant, even in his absence. The second point is, notwithstanding 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”.

The EFCC Counsel while 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.

He said; “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 said.

However, Counsel for the defendant, Michael Adoyi, kicked against Pinheiro’s argument, saying that the prosecution’s application was made contrary to a subsisting order of Justice Emeka Nwite’s court.

According to Adoyi; “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 further argued that the court, in a criminal trial, is distinct from the prosecution and cited Supreme Court verdicts on similar matters, saying; “The application made by learned senior counsel for the complainant this morning is a dangerous invitation to this honourable court. Civil proceeding is different from criminal proceeding”.

Adoyi noted that the prosecution’s application could not be anchored on any of the provisions of the ACJA, 2015 that he had cited, stressing that the provisions do not excuse the need for physical presence of the defendant.

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

Responding, the prosecution Counsel, urged the court to dismiss the argument of the Counsel to the defendant and should go ahead with the ruling on entering a plea of not guilty for the Defendant.

The trial judge, Justice Nwite, however said it would not be possible to deliver the ruling this year since he is just coming as a vacation judge.

Following the position of the Judge, Councel to the EFCC therefore proposed January 21, 2025 for ruling and/or arraignment.

Accordingly, Justice Nwite adjourned the ruling to January 21, 2025 for ruling on the application by the EFCC.

At the last hearing on September 25, the Counsel to the defendant, A.M. Adoyi, 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”.

Adoyi 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.