Get the latest updates on Yahaya Bello’s alleged fraud case as the court schedules dates for his response to the summons. Stay informed on this developing legal matter.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has requested a postponement for the hearing of its new charges against Yahaya Bello, the former Governor of Kogi State, and two other individuals to November 14, 2024.
At the hearing that resumed, Rotimi Oyedepo, who is representing the Commission as Counsel, stated that the court had issued a public summons for Bello. The directive required this to be published and instructed that the charge be posted.
However, Justice Maryann Anenih, the trial judge, interrupted to clarify that she had instructed only the summons be posted and not the charge.
Oyedepo mentioned that he anticipated Bello’s appearance in court on November 14, citing the 30-day period stipulated by the summons. Consequently, he requested a postponement of the arraignment for all three defendants until November 14.
Joseph Daudu, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria representing the second defendant, raised an objection to this.
He mentioned that the issue was scheduled for arraignment and confirmed their readiness, emphasizing that each defendant is independent and should be regarded accordingly.
“You cannot use someone as a human shield when they are not being held hostage. I dislike this practice,” he stated.
The counsel for the third defendant, in agreement with Daudu, alternatively requested that the court consider his client’s application for bail.
However, the EFCC Counsel, Oyedepo, stated that the bail application could not be considered because it was a joint charge.
He believes it contains elements of conspiracy.
The EFCC lawyer urged the court to adjourn until November 14, informing that there was an application related to enforcing the fundamental rights of the second defendant and indicating that such a request could not be addressed orally.
The attorney for the second defendant, Daudu, maintained that this contradicted the principles of a fair hearing.
His argument is convincing, but it doesn’t align with the legal requirements. According to the law, an individual must appear in person before being arraigned. This practice is confusing to me.
“It undermines the principle of fair hearing, which grants us the right to address any issue. Retaining them for 10 years will make no difference.”
“They have previously received administrative bail from the EFCC, so granting them it again wouldn’t affect their pride,” he stated.
The attorney for the second defendant also requested a date to file an application concerning his client’s fundamental rights.
Although the trial judge denied the oral request for bail, she indicated that the defendants could submit formal applications in writing.
Justice MaryAnne Anenih subsequently adjourned the proceedings to November 14th and 20th for the response of the first defendant to either summons or arraignment.
