June 27, (THEWILL) – Former Kogi State governor, Yahaya Bello, on Thursday, faulted the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court in Abuja to try him on allegations of money laundering, breach of trust and misappropriation of public funds to the tune of about N80.2 billion.
Bello, who is facing a 19-count charge, in a letter he wrote to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, through his team of lawyers led by Abdulwahab Mohammed, SAN, maintained that only the Lokoja Division of the High Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the allegations that were raised against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
He, therefore, requested the permission of Justice Tsoho to allow him to face his trial in Kogi State.
One of the former governor’s lawyers, Adeola Adedipe, SAN, brought the attention of trial Justice Emeka Nwite to the letter on Thursday.
Addressing the court, 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 Honourable 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 Honourable CJ wrote the prosecution team through Mr. Iseoluwa Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, on June 13, notifying him that administrative steps had 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 with 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.”
However, the EFCC objected to Bello’s request. Its counsel, Kemi Pinheiro, 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.”
About the Author
