Yahaya Bello: Court fixes November 14 for response to summon, arraignment

Justice Maryann Anenih of the Federal Capital Territory High Court in Maitama, Abuja, on Thursday, adjourned till November 14, for arraignment of the defendants and response to the summon issued by the Court for the immediate past Governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello.

He is to appear before it for arraignment on the fresh 16-count charges brought against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.

The adjournment was fixed on the request of the prosecution counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), who stated that at the last adjourned date, the court had issued a public summons against the 1st defendant (Bello), directing that same be published and that the charge be pasted.

Justice Anenih, however, interjected, stating that she did not ask that the charge be pasted, only the summons.

Oyedepo explained to the court that he expected the 1st defendant to be in court on November 14, making reference to the 30-day duration of the summons, and therefore sought adjournment till November 14 for the arraignment of all three defendants.

Counsel to the 2nd defendant, JB Daudu (SAN), however, objected, stating that the matter was scheduled for arraignment and that if the prosecution is not ready to read the charge to the defendants, he will have to ask that they be discharged and they have been in custody for over one month.

He added that the defendants were all independent and shouldn’t be used as a shield for the sake of one who is absent.

“My Lord, we are here for arraignment. I don’t think the prosecution should use them as a shield as they are individually here on their own. I will ask for their discharge if he (the prosecution) is not ready for arraignment. We either take plea or their discharge.

“You cannot be using somebody as a human shield when they are not in hostage. I don’t like this practice,” he said.

The counsel to the 3rd defendant, A.M. Aliyu (SAN), agreed with the submission of the 2nd defendant’s counsel, adding that he would be asking the court to take his client’s application for bail.

“In the alternative, my Lord, I have filed an application for bail which was duly served on the complainant,” he said.

ADVERTISEMENT

Oyedepo, however, said that the application for bail could not be taken as the charge was a joint charge. According to him, there are counts of conspiracy in it.

He insisted that the court should adjourn to November 14.

He further stated that the defense counsel has served the EFCC with an application for the enforcement of fundamental rights of the 2nd defendant on him and that the oral application cannot be taken.

The 2nd defendant’s counsel, Daudu, however, insisted that this was against the principles of fair hearing.

He said, “Fundamental human right is not about freedom alone but fair hearing. I urge my Lord to take a global look at the matter. They left their family for over a month now.

“We urge the court to release the two on bail and that keeping them will not have any impact on the case.

“His argument is persuasive but does not go by what the law says. That is until one individual appears before they can be arraigned. I don’t understand this kind of practice.

“It is an affront to fair hearing because the privilege of fair hearing allows us to raise any issue. Keeping them for 10 years will have no impact.

“They have enjoyed administrative bail before with the EFCC, so it won’t hurt their pride if they give it to them.”

The 2nd defendant’s counsel also asked for a date for a fundamental rights application for his client.

After taking the submissions of the parties involved, Justice Anenih rejected the defendants’ oral application for bail.

She ordered the defendants to come with a formal application as their oral application was not accepted.

She said, “I have considered your application for bail; it is noted that, as rightly stated by the prosecution, the defendants are at liberty to make proper application for bail in this court; otherwise, the oral application made today is hereby refused.”

She subsequently adjourned to November 14 and 20 for the response of the 1st defendant to summons and/or arraignment.