The trial involving EFCC and Bello will proceed despite the appeal that is still pending. The former Kogi governor is set to be arraigned on September 25th.

The hearing of the case involving Yahaya Bello, a former Governor of Kogi State and allegations of money laundering brought forward by the EFCC was postponed to September 25th, 2024. Justice Emeka Nwite presided over these proceedings at the Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday.

Despite the appeal filed by the defendant on jurisdiction at the Court of Appeal in Abuja, the judge ruled that proceedings would proceed.

The defense team for the ex-governor, Abdulwahab Mohammed, SAN has informed the court that they submitted a request to halt legal proceedings on this case until an appeal pending at the Court of Appeal regarding an arrest warrant and other rulings is determined.

On Wednesday, during the continuation of the hearing concerning this matter, Mohammed, counsel to Bello raised an argument based on established authorities. He contended that until a pending appeal was decided upon, it would be inappropriate for the court to proceed any further with this case.

He criticized the treatment his colleague received during the previous hearing and stated that “Your lordship is no longer in a position to act. It wouldn’t be catastrophic if the court were to postpone proceedings until after awaiting for an outcome from the Court of Appeal.”

Our dependence is on the Constitutional provision that supersedes the EFCC Act, upon which basis the prosecution rests their case.

The defendant’s application was met with strong opposition from EFCC counsel, Kemi Pinhero, SAN. The lawyer argued that there was no evidence of a Court of Appeal document requesting the lower court to halt proceedings.

The trial Judge, Justice Emeka Nwite, questioned if it would constitute judicial misconduct for his court to proceed with the case after receiving the application and affidavit while being mindful of the ongoing appeal.

“Wouldn’t it be considered judicial misconduct to proceed with this case while a jurisdictional issue remains?” Inquired the judge.

According to Pinheiro, the prosecutor, jurisdiction was not a major concern. He stated that simply submitting an affidavit would not be enough since it wasn’t a civil case and advised the court to focus on the current issue at hand – which is ruling on June 27th’s arguments.

Abdulwahab Mohammed, counsel for the defendant, informed the court that on June 27th there was a misunderstanding and it was actually requested to expunge only the proceedings of that day.

He argued that continuing to ask for the undoing of the Court of Appeal’s work would only lead to controversy and render any appeal meaningless. Additionally, even if Yahaya Bello were present, he could not be arraigned.

On the 16th of July 2024, an affidavit was filed to notify your lordship about the appeals that were submitted regarding your rulings on April 23rd and May 10th.

On May 23rd, the appeal was sent to the Court of Appeal and on May 31st, the appellant’s argument brief was submitted. Additionally, a motion for stay has been filed with the Court of Appeal. Both appeals primarily contest this court’s authority to preside over these charges from their inception.

Abdulwahab strongly recommends that your lordship delete the record of the proceedings on June 27th due to an appeal having been lodged during that time. As a result, those proceedings should not have taken place since the court was functus officio. He further points out that proceeding with hearing this matter would create a conflict between the trial court and Court of Appeal.

Pinheiro submitted that one of the appeals was to request a stay on any further proceedings by the trial court until a decision is made regarding the appeal.

He pointed out that the judge was obligated to follow his own previous decisions, giving him the power to decide whether or not to proceed with the case. He highlighted that one of defendant’s counsel’s arguments referred back a 1999 ruling which took place before EFCC Act came into effect in 2004.

He submitted that in 2016, the position was advocated for Ricky Tarfa Mustapha, SAN in a case titled Mustapha v FRN. The court ruled that a stay of proceedings can only be granted upon receipt of an order from the Court of Appeal referencing Section 306 ACJA. A similar decision was reached by the court during Chukwuma v IGP case which took place in 2018.

Abdulwahab addressed the legal aspects and stated, “We possess two notices of appeal. One is based on mixed law and fact, while the other challenges jurisdiction. The authorities referred to in this matter do not relate to jurisdiction, as Chukwuma v IGP concerns admissibility of documents rather than jurisdiction.”

The criminal appeal in Chief Cletus Ibeto v FRN shares identical facts with the recent case and is currently ongoing. Due to jurisdictional issues, proceedings were halted by the lower court but are now being discussed at the Court of Appeal regarding Section 306 – this follows proper procedure.

According to Justice Nwite’s decision, the awarding of a stay in legal proceedings is solely up to the court’s judgment and cannot be authorized by anyone else. The judge must use their judicial power appropriately when exercising this discretion.

Before going on recess, the judge inquired whether it would be considered judicial misconduct to proceed with the case where there was a jurisdictional issue. However, later on, he changed his stance and acknowledged that the defendant’s intention to file an appeal could be viewed as an attempt to stall proceedings.

He stated that there have been prior Court of Appeal rulings concerning such issues.

Additionally, he approved the defendant’s counsel, Adeola Adedipe SAN application for withdrawal from the case and directed that an investigation into potential breaches of professional conduct by both defendants’ attorneys be conducted by the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC).

After stating the law, Justice Nwite posed a question pertaining to whether there was a breached undertaking by Abdulwahab and Adedipe, SAN that can be classified as contempt of court.

As a result, he postponed Yahaya Bello’s arraignment to September 25th, 2024.