THE immediate past governor of Kogi State, Alhaji Yahaya Bello, who is facing a 19-count charge brought against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), has written a letter to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, saying he preferred to be tried in Kogi State, rather than Abuja.
Bello, in the letter through his lawyers, led by Mr. Abdulwahab Mohammed (SAN), insisted that only the Lokoja Division of the court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the allegations against him, noting that since he was alleged to have committed the offence when he was the governor of Kogi State, it was only proper for the case to be heard in the state.
At the resumed proceeding in the matter on Thursday, June 27, the former governor failed to appear in person before the Federal High Court in Abuja to enter his plea. Instead, a lawyer who announced appearance for him, Mr. Adeola Adedipe (SAN), drew the attention of trial Judge, Justice Emeka Nwite, to the letter his client wrote to Justice Tsoho.
Adedipe said: “My lord, after the proceedings of the last adjourned date, I went back and gave a report of what happened in court to our team.
“However, I was made to understand that a letter had been written on behalf of the defendant to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, requesting in substance, that this matter be administratively transferred to the Federal High Court, Lokoja Judicial Division, which we believe have territorial jurisdiction to handle this matter.
“That letter was received at the Chief Judge’s Chambers, and the office of the of CJ wrote the prosecution team, through Mr. Iseoluwa Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), on June 13, notifying him that administrative steps has been activated, whereof he was directed to provide a response to the request for transfer of the matter.
“My lord, as of this morning, I am not aware whether there has been a response by the prosecution team, in compliance to the directive of the CJ.
“We are also not in receipt of any decision that has been made on this request by the CJ.
“I am also aware that this administrative directive of the CJ has been formally communicated to this court.
“We have filed an affidavit, wherein we attached two documents referencing the details that I have just highlighted.
“My duty is first to the court. As of the moment, I am not urging anything from the court, but just to present the facts as they were.”
The EFCC, through its Counsel, Mr. Kemi Pinhero (SAN), urged the court to compel the defence lawyer to explain why the defendant was not in court, despite an undertaking he made on June 13 to ensure his presence in court for arraignment.
He prayed the court to dismiss “the story of the defence lawyer as dilatory and a further attempt to treat this court with scorn.”
Recall that Bello had on four occasions refused to appear in court, citing various reasons, including EFCC’s bias against him.
His whereabouts remained unknown since EFCC operatives attempted to arrest him at his Abuja residence.
The anti-graft agency has been investigating Bello over allegations of financial misconduct and misuse of public funds during his tenure as governor.
The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, had set aside the contempt proceedings instituted by Bello against the EFCC Chairman, Mr. Olanipekun Olukoyede, by granting an ex parte motion for stay of proceedings of contempt application against Olukoyede by Bello.
The appellate court, presided over by Justice Joseph O.K. Oyewole, consequently granted the EFCC’s application to serve the processes in the appeal by substituted means on the former governor.
Olukoyede was summoned to appear before the Kogi State High Court in May to show cause why he should not be committed to prison for disobeying its orders, following the siege on Bello’s Abuja residence, after the court had ruled in the former governor’s favour in the fundamental human rights suits he filed before the court.
The court ruled that the EFCC chair carried out “some acts upon which they (the EFCC) have been restrained” by the court on February 9, pending the hearing and determination of the substantive originating motion.
