A Federal High Court in Abuja has rejected the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s (EFCC) request to arraign former Governor Yahaya Bello of Kogi in the absence of his lawyers.
Justice Emeka Nwite delivered this ruling based on the EFCC’s counsel, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, who made an oral application. The judge emphasized that such a request could not be granted in the interest of fair hearing.
Justice Nwite acknowledged Pinheiro’s statement that, although a bench warrant was issued against the former governor, “fair hearing cannot be sacrificed on the altar of a bench warrant.”
The judge noted that the case had previously been adjourned until January 21, 2025, before the EFCC sought to expedite the arraignment.
When the matter was brought up, the former governor was present in court but was not represented by any lawyer.
The judge questioned the EFCC’s counsel about the absence of Bello’s legal representation. Pinheiro stated that the defendant was in a better position to answer why his lawyers were missing.
Also Read: EFCC Detains Delta former Governor Okowa for Alleged Derivation Funds Fraud
When asked, Bello explained that he was only informed of the court sitting late Thursday night at around 11 PM, which made it impossible for him to contact his lawyers.
Pinheiro then requested to proceed with the arraignment of Mr Bello, arguing that “what the law requires is the presence of the defendant, not the presence of his lawyers,” citing sections 271 and 396 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) of 2015.
He requested that the charges be read to the defendant and that his plea be taken, suggesting that the matter could then be adjourned.
However, the judge indicated that this case was unique. He stated, “It is peculiar in the sense that we have already agreed on a date, which is in January. It would be a different scenario if the defendant had no counsel.”
Read Also: EFCC Detains Delta former Governor Okowa for Alleged Derivation Funds Fraud
Pinheiro maintained that the defendant’s plea should be taken, referencing a previous case, Joseph Vs. State, 2014, which asserted that the court only requires the physical presence of the defendant, not that of his counsel.
In his ruling, Justice Nwite expressed that he had carefully considered both the prosecution’s submissions and the defendant’s circumstances.
He clarified, “It is not in dispute that on October 30, this matter came up, and the defendant was not in court. It is also not in dispute that the court ordered the parties to address whether the defendant can be tried in absentia.”
The judge concluded that it would be unfair to proceed without the defendant’s counsel present, stating, “It would be a different thing if the defendant had no counsel. Therefore, I am of the view that the defendant’s counsel be put on notice.”
Justice Nwite subsequently adjourned the matter until December 13 for the EFCC’s motion regarding the expedited arraignment of the former governor. He ordered that a hearing notice be issued and served on the defendant’s lawyers and that the ex-governor should remain in the custody of the EFCC until the scheduled hearing date.
