Nigeria
Prosecution of Yahaya Bello Will Proceed Without Reversal
Published
1 week agoon
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has made it clear that there will be no turning back on the prosecution of former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello. In a statement, EFCC Chairman Ola Olukoyede emphasized that the commission has not violated any laws in its pursuit of Bello.
Olukoyede also revealed that Bello is under investigation for allegedly using $720,000 of state funds to pay for his child’s tuition. Bello, on the other hand, has accused the anti-graft agency of harassment and has called on them to follow due process.
He has also rejected the suspension of the arrest warrant issued against him and has vowed to appear in court voluntarily. Olukoyede reiterated that the EFCC has not violated any court orders and that those who obstructed Bello’s arrest will face trial.
He emphasized that immunity will not protect anyone who obstructs the course of justice and that it is in Bello’s best interest to appear for trial. Olukoyede further explained that a sitting governor cannot transfer such a large sum of money without being questioned.
He clarified that it was the Kogi State High Court that directed the EFCC to proceed to the Federal High Court, where the arrest warrant was obtained.
He expressed his desire to clarify the situation regarding Yahaya Bello’s case, emphasizing that the EFCC has not violated any laws. He mentioned a publication that had been released and hoped that most people had seen it, urging opinion leaders to take the time to understand their actions.
Furthermore, he referred to a copy of the judgment from the Kogi State High Court, where the individual had sought the enforcement of his fundamental human rights. He highlighted that they had not disobeyed the law but had actually followed it accordingly.
Quoting Hon. Justice Isah Jamil Abdullahi, he emphasized that the EFCC cannot be restrained from conducting criminal investigations, but this must be done in accordance with the constitution and any court orders.
The judge also stated that where there is an infringement of rights, there must be a remedy, underscoring the importance of justice in such matters.
The applicant is undoubtedly eligible for certain protective measures. Although I am inclined to grant the applicant’s request in this application, I can only do so within the boundaries of our laws.
It has been consistently emphasized in this judgment that the respondent, EFCC, cannot be restrained from carrying out its statutory duty to investigate and prosecute individuals or authorities reasonably suspected of committing financial crimes, as mandated by its establishment Act. Therefore, I will not issue such an order.
However, upon reviewing the applicant’s request, I am inclined to grant it with some modifications that I believe would serve the interests of justice in this case.
Therefore, an order is hereby granted to uphold the applicant’s fundamental rights to liberty, freedom of movement, and fair hearing by restraining the respondent, EFCC, and its representatives from further harassing, threatening to arrest or detain, or taking any action that may result in the arrest, detention, or persecution of the applicant based on the criminal charges currently pending before the Federal High Court.
Furthermore, it is important to note that this order does not impede the powers of the Federal High Court to make any necessary orders in the determination of the rights of both the applicant and the respondent, as may be presented to the court for consideration.
As such, an order is also granted, directing the respondent, EFCC, to bring before the Federal High Court or any other appropriate court, any criminal charges, allegations, or complaints that the respondent reasonably believes the applicant to have committed, subject to the jurisdiction provided by the respondent.
The Kogi State High Court had specifically instructed the EFCC to proceed to the Federal High Court and file charges, contrary to the rumors circulating.
Olukoyede, in his explanation, detailed how the EFCC had gone out of their way to request Governor Bello’s presence for questioning. However, instead of complying, the ex-governor had insisted that the EFCC’s team come to his village to conduct the interrogation.
Olukoyede had personally reached out to Bello, inviting him to his office to clear his name, but the governor had declined, citing the presence of journalists planted by a senator. Despite offering to provide a discreet entrance for Bello, the ex-governor had insisted on being interrogated in his village.
Olukoyede emphasized that the EFCC had not violated any laws during their attempt to arrest Bello at his residence. In fact, they had diligently followed the court order and exercised restraint when faced with armed policemen and the potential for a violent confrontation.
Olukoyede questioned why Bello had not submitted himself to the law, especially when other former governors had willingly done so.
If the EFCC fails in its mission to combat corruption, it would be a failure for all Nigerians. It is our collective responsibility to ensure that this mandate is fulfilled so that future generations will remember us positively.
In order to achieve this, it is important for us to approach the issue objectively and without bias. The question raised by Olukoyede is why he cannot investigate Yahaya Bello if he has previously arrested other individuals, such as Obiano, as long as there is evidence to support the investigation.
The EFCC chairman, in his statement, emphasized that Bello should be held accountable for the payment of over $720,000 in advance for his children’s school fees. He revealed that Bello, being aware of his impending departure from the government, transferred money directly from the government’s account to a bureau de change for this purpose.
Olukoyede expressed his determination to pursue this case, stating that not everyone can be influenced by money. He clarified that the investigation is not a personal attack, but rather a matter of Bello submitting himself to the law.
He questioned why Bello has not come forward to address the allegations and emphasized that his actions are not justified.
Olukoyede also addressed concerns about the prejudicial nature of his disclosures, stating that the information he provided during the briefing is already part of the court processes.
He urged the public to take the initiative to access the court’s certified true copies of these processes, as they contain evidence of the money used to pay the school fees.
He also acknowledged the role of the media in disseminating information, highlighting the case of Godwin Emefiele and the clear explanation of the amount stolen. Olukoyede emphasized the importance of paying attention to details and conducting thorough investigations.
Olukoyede emphasized that all individuals involved in impeding the arrest of Bello will face legal consequences, stating that immunity is not permanent and that it is unacceptable for a state agency to be obstructed from performing its duties.
He expressed determination to persevere despite facing criticism, highlighting the responsibility entrusted to them by the public.
Regarding the suspended Minister of Humanitarian Affairs, Dr. Betta Edu, Olukoyede mentioned that investigations are ongoing and that approximately 15 senior staff members are implicated in the ministry scandal.
He noted that the process of cleansing a system through investigation can take a significant amount of time, possibly up to two years, and emphasized the importance of not personalizing the probe.
Olukoyede addressed misconceptions surrounding the investigation into Betta Edu, stressing the need to focus on the broader context rather than singling out individuals.
In the ongoing investigation, it has been revealed that over 15 senior staff members of a particular institution, not limited to Betta Edu, have been found to have some level of culpability. The focus is on the regime within the EFCC, emphasizing that the efforts are geared towards serving the interests of Nigerians as a whole, rather than targeting specific individuals. The intention is to address systemic issues rather than singling out particular figures.
The concern raised is about the systemic flaws that allowed a staggering amount of N14 billion to be moved out of the agency’s account within an hour without proper authorization or allocation to any specific project.
This highlights the need to address structural weaknesses within the system that enable such large-scale financial misconduct to occur unchecked. The emphasis is placed on the systemic nature of the investigation, stressing that even if individuals were replaced within the ministry, the underlying issues would persist.
The focus is on understanding and rectifying the systemic failures that have allowed corruption to thrive, rather than attributing blame solely to specific individuals like Betta Edu or Halima.
The investigation aims to uncover any wrongdoing that may have occurred over time, regardless of who was in charge at the time.
In a ruling, Justice Emeka Nwite approved the EFCC’s request for substituted service of the charge on Bello, the ex-Governor, by delivering it to his lawyer along with the proof of evidence.
Bello’s lawyer objected to this method of service, but the judge overruled the objection, stating that the lawyer could not refuse to accept the documents since he had already appeared in the case and filed applications on behalf of the defendant.
After the ruling, the charge and accompanying documents were handed to Bello’s lead lawyer, Abdulwahab Mohammed, who accepted them in open court and signed for them.
Following the service of the charge on Bello’s lawyer, Adedipe orally requested that the warrant of arrest issued against his client be revoked.
Adedipe argued that the arrest order was invalid because the necessary conditions were not met before the court was misled by the EFCC to issue it.
However, when reminded that the defendant had previously filed an application on this matter, Adedipe chose to argue the application instead, which was opposed by Pinheiro.
Pinheiro, citing Section 396(2) of the ACJA, argued that the court could not entertain any of the defendant’s applications without him being arraigned first.
The EFCC lawyer pointed out that there were three pending applications filed by the defendant, including one challenging the court’s jurisdiction, another seeking to set aside the warrant of arrest, and a third one.
According to the provision of Section 396(2) of the ACJA, all these applications could only be argued and decided after the defendant entered a plea.
In a ruling, Justice Emeka Nwite approved the EFCC’s request for substituted service of the charge on Bello, the ex-Governor, by handing it over to his lawyer along with the proof of evidence.
Bello’s lawyer objected to the substituted service, but the judge overruled the objection, stating that the lawyer could not refuse to accept the documents on behalf of his client since he had already appeared in the case unconditionally and had filed applications for the defendant.
After the ruling, the charge and accompanying documents were given to Bello’s lead lawyer, Abdulwahab Mohammed, who accepted them in open court and signed for them.
Following the service of the charge on Bello’s lawyer, Adedipe orally requested that the warrant of arrest against his client be vacated, arguing that the arrest order was invalid because the necessary conditions were not met before the court issued it based on misleading information from the EFCC.
Adedipe also mentioned that the defendant had previously filed an application on this matter, but Pinheiro objected, citing the ACJA and stating that the court could not hear any applications from the defendant until he was arraigned.
The EFCC lawyer pointed out that there were three pending applications from the defendant, including one challenging the court’s jurisdiction, one seeking to set aside the warrant of arrest, and another one.
However, Pinheiro argued that these applications could only be addressed after the defendant entered a plea, in accordance with Section 396(2) of the ACJA.
Justice Nwite has postponed the ruling until May 10, emphasizing the need for a fair and just legal process. Bello, in response to the allegations against him, has urged the EFCC to adhere to due process and uphold the rule of law in their investigations.
Bello’s media aide, Ohiare Michael, conveyed Bello’s stance that he is not intimidated by the EFCC and is willing to cooperate within the bounds of the law.
He highlighted that official records and court documents should be the basis for any legal actions taken against him.
Furthermore, Bello challenged the EFCC to provide evidence of their claims, including the alleged invitation sent to him after his tenure ended.
He pointed out that the commission failed to present a warrant at his residence in Abuja, suggesting a lack of proper legal procedures followed by the EFCC in their actions against him.
