The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has firmly requested that Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court in Maitama, Abuja, move forward with the trial of former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello in absentia.
The EFCC asserts that his failure to appear in court for arraignment should not obstruct the judicial process.
Lead counsel for the EFCC, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, has unequivocally urged the court to enter a plea of “not guilty” on Bello’s behalf.
Bello faces 19 charges related to money laundering amounting to N80.2 billion.
The court has called for his arraignment six times, yet he has failed to appear.
Pinheiro argued that Bello’s refusal to attend was a deliberate act designed to frustrate the legal proceedings.
“The court cannot demonstrate helplessness, as that would imply anarchy; society functions under the rule of law. Allowing this scenario would undermine the very foundation of justice,” he stated.
He further emphasized that a defendant’s refusal to engage in court processes must not derail the trial. “Justice is a three-way obligation: it must be served to the defendant, the prosecution, and society at large.”
In earlier statements, Pinheiro insisted that the court enter a not-guilty plea for Bello, asserting that under Section 276 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), a defendant’s physical presence is not an absolute requirement for arraignment.
Read Also:Â N80bn Fraud: Yahaya Bello’s Actions Sending Wrong Signals to Investors and Youths, Says CSOs
“The right to plead guilty or not guilty can indeed be waived by the defendant,” he made clear, stressing that Bello’s absence should not hinder the case.
“My primary application is to formally enter a not-guilty plea in the defendant’s absence. Moreover, the trial must proceed regardless of his physical absence. What potential prejudice could the defendant suffer if Your Lordship enters a plea of not guilty on his behalf? The outcome remains unchanged whether he is present or not. Entering a not-guilty plea compels the prosecution to substantiate their allegations,” he asserted.
In opposition, the defendant’s counsel, Michael Adoyi, challenged the prosecution’s motion, citing a prior court order that mandates the defendant’s presence for any applications.
He firmly stated that the current application contradicts the court’s directive.
“Our response to the application submitted by the learned senior counsel for the complainant is straightforward: it violates the existing order of this honourable court, which clearly states that no applications will be entertained in the absence of the defendant’s arraignment,” he asserted.
Pinheiro countered Adoyi’s claims with conviction, urging the court to dismiss the defence’s position and proceed with entering the plea.
He assured the court that doing so would not infringe on the defendant’s rights or compromise the fairness of the trial.
After carefully considering the arguments from both sides, Justice Nwite acknowledged that a ruling on the matter may not be rendered before the end of the current year due to court scheduling conflicts.
“It is unlikely that a ruling can be delivered this year,” he noted. Pinheiro then proposed an adjournment for a ruling and arraignment, which Justice Nwite granted, rescheduling the case for January 21, 2025.
