A’Court affirms Shaibu as Edo dep gov, overturns Bello’s ruling

By Ameh Ochojila (Abuja) and Ngozi Egenuka (Lagos)

21 August 2024   |   2:58 am

The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja has affirmed the lower court’s judgment that reinstated Philip Shaibu as the Deputy Governor of Edo State. The appellate court, while delivering judgment in the appeal brought before it by the Edo House of Assembly, dismissed the appeal seeking to uphold Shaibu’s impeachment.

 
 However, there seems to be no hiding place for the former governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello, as the court also overturned the decision of a Kogi High Court restraining the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) from prosecuting him on a money laundering charge.
 
Shaibu was impeached on April 8, 2024, following the adoption of the report of a seven-man committee set up by the Chief Judge of Edo, Justice Daniel Okungbowa, to investigate allegations of misconduct against him.
 
The House Majority Leader, Charity Aiguobarueghian, had said that while the report of the panel was unable to establish the case of perjury against Shaibu, the panel found him guilty of disclosing government’s secrets.
 
Justice James Omotosho of a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, on July 17, voided the impeachment of Shaibu as deputy governor of Edo and ordered his immediate reinstatement to office.
 
Omotosho held that the allegation on which the House of Assembly based the impeachment proceedings was untenable in law and constituted gross misconduct. He ordered the Inspector General of Police (IGP) to provide him with the needed security for him to resume office and perform the functions of the office until the end of his tenure.
 
The court warned that any individual, save Shaibu, parading themselves as deputy governor would face legal consequences. It also set aside the appointment of Omobayo Godwin as the new deputy governor in place of Shaibu.

THE three-man panel of the appellate court, in a unanimous decision read by Justice I. K. Amadi, held that the decision of the judge of the lower court, Justice Isah Jamil, which set Bello free despite seeing the charge filed by the EFCC, was a scandal.
 
The justices, comprising Justice H. A. Barka, Justice S. A. Bola and Amadi ordered Bello to obey the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) and present himself for arraignment.
 
The court allowed the appeal marked NO:CA/ABJ/CV/412/2024, filed by Chief J.S. Okutepa SAN on behalf of the EFCC against the judgment of Justice Jamil in a fundamental right case filed by Bello in February 2024.
 
Bello is scheduled for arraignment before Justice Emeka Nwite on nine counts of money laundering involving over N80 billion, which he allegedly diverted from the Kogi government’s treasury.
 
However, since filing the charges, the EFCC has not been able to bring him to court. The former governor went into hiding and snubbed five court sessions scheduled for his arraignment on April 18 and 23, May 10, June 13 and June 27, by mostly filing several applications challenging, among others, the EFCC and the court’s power to arraign him.
 
He also filed appeals challenging the court’s order insisting on his arraignment, but the justices held, among others, that Bello’s Preliminary Objection to the charge was not sustainable.  

 
During the proceedings, the court adopted the two issues raised by the respondent. It held that the trial Judge had the charge in FRN VS. ALI BELLO & ANOR, FHC/ABJ/CR/550/2022 in his hand, but still set the respondent free, “under the guise of enforcing his fundamental rights. This is very scandalous.”
 
Justice Amadi added that it was very clear that the purpose of the case instituted at the trial court was “to shield the respondent from his criminal trial.”
 
The court relied on its earlier decision per Oyewole JCA in EFCC vs. ALH. YAHAYA BELLO, CA/ABJ/CV/413/2024 to reiterate that “no court has the power to preclude a law enforcement agency from performing its statutory functions.” In effect, the court agreed with the submissions of the appellant.  
 
Overall, the court held that “the appeal is meritorious and is, therefore, allowed.”  The second appeal was similarly decided with the court deciding in the EFCC’s favour; the appeal against the ruling of the lower court that no application of the appellant would be entertained until he presented himself for arraignment.
 
On the preliminary objection, the court was of the view that grounds 5 and 6 of the Notice of Appeal (NoA) contained issues of law; hence, no leave was required. The preliminary objection was thus discountenanced.
 
The court, in addressing the main appeal, held that in view of section 396 (2) of ACJA, “no objection to the validity of the charge shall be entertained until arraignment of the defendant.”
The appeal was consequently dismissed.