Court Fixes September 25 For Yahaya Bello’s Arraignment

The Federal High Court in Abuja has set a new date, September 25, 2024, for the arraignment of former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Bello.

This decision comes despite an ongoing appeal filed at the Court of Appeal in Abuja.

Justice Emeka Nwite, who presided over the case, announced the new date following a ruling on an application by Bello’s counsel, Abdulwahab Mohammed, SAN.

The defence had requested a stay of proceedings due to an appeal against an arrest warrant and other prior rulings issued by Justice Nwite.

During the session, Mohammed argued that the court should halt proceedings until the appeal is resolved, citing relevant legal authorities.

He highlighted the inappropriate treatment of his colleague, Adeola Adedipe, SAN, at the previous hearing and accused the prosecution of misleading the court.

“Your lordship is functus officio to continue with this case. Heavens will not fall if my Lord awaits the Court of Appeal’s decision,” Mohammed stated, emphasizing the supremacy of the constitution over the EFCC Act, which the prosecution relied on.

Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, representing the EFCC, opposed the defence’s submission, asserting that there was no documentation from the Court of Appeal instructing the lower court to stay proceedings.

He contended that the case was not a civil matter and that continuing with the hearing would not constitute judicial rascality.

Justice Nwite questioned whether proceeding with the case, knowing an appeal was pending, would amount to judicial overreach. “Won’t it amount to judicial rascality to continue this case when there’s an issue of jurisdiction?” he asked.

Pinhero maintained that the issue at hand was not one of jurisdiction, urging the court to adhere to the scheduled ruling on the arguments presented on June 27.

The defence reiterated that the judge had been misled during the June 27 session and requested that the proceedings from that day be expunged.

“They are asking your lordship to undo the work of the Court of Appeal.

“To avoid controversy and in order not to render the appeal nugatory, this should not continue.

“Even if Yahaya Bello were to be here, you cannot arraign him since the appeal has been entered,” he argued.

The senior lawyer said the 13-paragraph affidavit of records of the appeal was filed on July 16 with 10 exhibits.

“It is basically praying your lordship”s attention to the notices of appeal we have filed against your lordship rulings of the 23rd of April, 2024, and 10th of May, 2024.

“The file and records were transmitted through the Court of Appeal on the 24th of May, 2024.

“And that the appellant’s brief of argument was filed on 31st of May, 2024,” he said.

According to Mohammed, an appeal had been properly entered with a motion for a stay of further proceedings of the lower court filed in respect of both appeals.

He argued that the two appeals challenged the jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain the charge ab initio.

“We urge your lordship to expunge the record of the proceedings on 27th of June because, at that time, an appeal had been entered and the proceedings should not have happened. The court was functus officio,” he insisted.

He said going ahead with the matter would bring the court into conflict with the Court of Appeal.

Pinheiro observed that one of the appeals sought to have the court stay further proceedings until the determination of the appeal.

He, however, noted that the judge was bound by his own rulings and, therefore, had the discretion to determine whether to proceed or not.

He argued that the first authority that Abdulwahab cited was a 1999 case that predated the EFCC Act, 2004.

“This same position was canvassed on behalf of Mustapha SAN in 2016 case, Mustapha v FRN, and the court held that proceedings can only be stayed where there is a Court of Appeal order to that effect, and they relied on 306. In Chukwuma v IGP, a 2018 case, the court held something similar,” he said.

Responding on the point of law, Abdulwahab said, “We have two notices of appeal—one on mixed law and fact and the other is on jurisdiction.

“The authorities he has cited are different from jurisdiction. Chukwuma v IGP is on the admissibility of the document and not jurisdiction.

“In Chief Cletus ibeto v Frn, which is an ongoing criminal appeal, all the facts are on all fours with the recent case.

“The lower court stayed proceedings because of the issue of jurisdiction, and now the argument at the Court of Appeal is on 306. That is how it is supposed to be.”

In his ruling, Justice Nwite said, “The grant of stay of proceedings is at the court’s discretion. And since it is an issue of discretion, no one can give an authority for the judge to rely on. The judge only needs to exercise this power judicially.”

The judge, in a twist, held that the defendant wanted to use the appeal to delay proceedings.

According to him, there have been previous Court of Appeal judgments on such matters.

In another ruling, Justice Nwite granted the application for withdrawal of the defendant’s counsel, Adeola Adedipe, SAN, from the case.

The judge referred the matter of alleged misconduct by the defence counsel over the alleged failure to produce the ex-governor in court to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee for investigation on possible infractions.

Justice Nwite said, having stated the law, “The question is whether there was an undertaking by Abdulwahab, SAN, and Adedipe, SAN, which was breached to amount to contempt of court.”

Pinheiro, however, commended Adedipe for taking the step to withdraw from the case, praying the court to vary the ruling on alleged misconduct levelled against the duo.

But Justice Nwite directed Pinheiro to file a formal application to the effect.

Consequently, he adjourned the case until Sept. 25 for arraignment.