April 23, (THEWILL)- The embattled former governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello, has prayed the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, to set aside an arrest Warrant the court earlier issued against him.Â
THEWILL earlier reported that Justice Emeka Nwite, on Wednesday, ordered the arrest of Yahaya Bello, to produce him in court to face alleged money laundering charges
The former governor, who is facing a 19-count charge of alleged money laundering to the tune of about N80.2 billion, has evaded arrest.
Consequently, the Federal Government has placed Bello on watchlist following request from the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
The anti-graft agency, last Thursday, declared Yahaya Bello wanted.
Addressing the court through his team of lawyers, led by Adeola Adedipe (SAN), the embattled former governor said he would have made himself available for the proceedings, but was afraid that he would be arrested.
Faulting the Warrant of Arrest, Bello, through his lawyer, argued that at the time the order of arrest was made, the charge had not been served on him as required by the law.
Adedipe noted that it was only at the resumed proceedings on Tuesday, that the court okayed substituted service of the charge on the defendant, through his lawyer.
“As at the time the warrant was issued, the order for substituted service had not been made. That order was just made this morning. A warrant of arrest should not be hanging on his neck when we leave this court”, said Adedipe.
Meanwhile, the embattled former governor has raised a constitutional order on the legality of the EFCC.
Referring to the EFCC as an illegal agency, Bello’s counsel, Adedipe, argued that the Federal Government did not consult the 36 States of the federation before it enacted the EFCC Act through the National Assembly. He argued that section 12 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, required the various Houses of Assembly of states to ratify the Act before it could become operative.
“This is a very serious matter that borders on the constitution and the tenets of federalism. It has to be resolved because as it stands, the EFCC is an illegal organisation”, he added.
In his response, counsel to the anti-graft agency, Mr Kemi Pinheiro (SAN), urged the court to refuse the application, insisting that the warrant of arrest should not be set aside until the defendant makes himself available for his trial.
Pinheiro further argued that inline with section 396 of ACJA, 2015, the court could not effectively assume jurisdiction to decide any application or objection in the matter, until the defendant is arraigned.
The anti-graft agency said it would not execute the arrest warrant if counsel to the defendant undertake to ensure his presence on the next adjourned date.
“If he gives an undertaking that his client will be in court on the next date, I can assure him that the arrest warrant will not be executed. If he gives that assurance, as the prosecution, I will personally apply for the warrant to be discharged”, Pinheiro added.
He told the court that the Supreme Court had since settled the issue of the legality of the EFCC.
