Refusal To Appear In Court: Judge Orders Dasuki Trial In Absentia

Admin II
5 Min Read
Col Sambo Dasuki (retd)

BY AMOS DUNIA, ABUJA – Justice Ahmed Rahmat Mohammed of the Federal High Court, sitting in Abuja on Monday invoked section 352 (4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) and ordered that former National Security Adviser (NSA), Col Sambo Dasuki (rtd) should be prosecuted in absentia by the Federal Government following his resolve not to appear in court for further proceedings.

The trial judge who gave the order at the resumed trial in Abuja in which Dasuki was absent said since the defendant did not attack any of the facts in the affidavit of the prosecution, the court resolved to uphold it and ordered that Dasuki be tried in absentia in compliance with 352 of ACJA.

Justice Rahmat Mohammed was one of justices whose orders granting Dasuki bail were disobeyed by the Federal Government.

Dasuki had last week in a letter he wrote to the Registrar of the Federal High Court, berated the Federal Government over his continued detention and disobedience to various court orders that granted him bails.

Dasuki in the letter he personally signed, vowed to boycott further proceeding for his trial since the Federal Government has proved beyond reasonable doubt that it would not obey any order of the court in his favour.

Dasuki had perfected bails granted him by five different High courts that included Justices Ademola Adeniyi, Ahmed Mohammed and Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu of the Abuja Federal High Court as well as Justice Hussein Baba-Yusuf and Justice Peter Affen of the FCT High Courts in addition to the ECOWAS Court of Justice which ordered his immediate release from detention.

At the resume hearing on Monday, counsel to the Federal Government Mr. Dipo Opeseyi filed an affidavit dated November 19, 2018 and attached with it Dasuki’s letter of November 12, 2018 in which he said he would no longer attend trial in court in protest against the disobedience of the Federal Government to several court judgements which ordered his release from unlawful detention since December 2015.

In the affidavit deposed to by a lawyer Abimbola Akintola, the Federal Government pleaded for the trial of Dasuki in absentia or in the alternative for the court to compel his presence before the court.

Opeseyi said the affidavit was filed in compliance with the order of the court of April 10, 2018 to the effect that whenever Dasuki chooses not to be in court, the prosecution must depose to an affidavit to the effect.

The legal Counsel said that Dasuki’s letter addressed to the Registrar of the court as tendered before the court, is clear that the ex-NSA has made up his minds not to attend the trial over charges of unlawful possession of fire-arms brought against him by the Federal Government.

Opeseyi further said that the grouse of Dasuki is borne out of facts that arose from matters in different courts adding that as such, his grievances ought to have been addressed to the affected courts.

But Counsel to Dasuki, Mr Victor Okwudili objected to the affidavit of the Federal Government on the ground that the affidavit evidence was not competent in the eyes of the law to be entertained by the court.

Okwudili drew the attention of the Court to the fact that the lawyer who deposed to and filed the affidavit did not affix his seal to the court process as required by Section 10 (Sub 1, 2,3) of the rule of professional conducts for legal practitioners in Nigeria.

Okwudili said with the failure to affix the seal of authority, there is no probate value that can be attached to the affidavit thus prayed the court to reject the affidavit and in the alternative adjourned the matter to enable him show the affidavit to Dasuki in the interest of fair hearing.

But in his ruling, Justice Mohammed said while he agreed that the affidavit has no seal of authority, he however said that it was deposed to by a lawyer in the chamber of Opeseyi adding that it contained only facts drawn from the letter of Dasuki where he declared not to attend the court again for trial.

The case was subsequently adjourned further trial to December 11, 2018

- Advertisement -
Share This Article
Leave a comment