On Thursday, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, or EFCC, requested that the hearing in its new allegation against Yahaya Bello, the immediate past governor of Kogi State, and two other individuals be postponed until November 14, 2024.
At the last adjourned date, the court issued a Public Summons against the first defendant, instructing that the charge be posted and that it be published, according to Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, who represented the EFCC at the Federal Capital Territory High Court.
However, Justice Maryann Anenih stepped in and clarified that she had only requested the summons and not the passing of the charge.
Oyedepo stated that, in light of the summons’ 30-day term, he anticipated the first defendant would appear in court on November 14 and hence request adjournment till November 14 for the arraignment of the three defendants.
This was disputed by Joseph Daudu, SAN, who represented the second defendant.
He stated that they were prepared for arraignment and that the defendants should be handled as such because they were all independent.
“When someone is not a captive, you cannot use them as a human shield. “This practice bothers me,” he remarked.
The third defendant’s attorney, A.M. Aliyu, SAN, concurred with Daudu, SAN, and stated that, if not, he would ask the court to consider his client’s bail request.
Umar Oricha is listed as the second defendant, and Abdulsalami Hudu is listed as the third defendant.
However, Oyedepo stated that since the charge was a joint one, the bail application could not be considered.
He claims that it contains conspiracy charges.
The EFCC attorney informed the court that an application had been filed for the enforcement of the second defendant’s fundamental rights and that the oral application could not be taken, and he insisted that the court be adjourned to November 14.
However, Daudu, the attorney for the second defendant, maintained that this disregarded the fair hearing rules.
Although his argument is convincing, it does not follow the law. Until one person shows up before being arraigned, that is. This type of practice is beyond my comprehension.
Since the right to a fair hearing gives us the freedom to voice our concerns, it is an insult to that right. Ten years of keeping them won’t make a difference.
“It won’t hurt their pride if they give them administrative bail because they have already enjoyed it with the EFCC,” he said.
Additionally, the attorney for the second defendant requested a date for his client’s fundamental rights application.
The judge stated that the accused should formally appear by completing written petitions for bail, even though she denied the oral application.
As a result, she postponed the first defendant’s response to the summons and/or arraignment until November 14 and 20.