A former Minister of Petroleum
Resources, Diezani Allison-Madueke on Monday asked a Federal High Court in
Lagos to issue an order, listing her as a party to a N500 million fraud charge
involving a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Dele Belgore.
The Economic and Financial Crimes
Commission (EFCC) had charged Belgore together with a former Minister of
National Planning, Prof. Abubakar Suleiman, on a five-count charge bordering on
N500 million fraud.
The EFCC had named the former
petroleum minister as an accomplice in the criminal trial.
She was however, described as
being “at large”.
The EFCC prosecutor, Mr Rotimi
Oyedepo had opened the case for the prosecution and had already called two
witnesses in the ongoing trial.
Meanwhile, at the last
adjournment on Oct 6, Allison-Madueke, through her lawyer, urged the court to
compel the Attorney-General of the Federation to extradite her to Nigeria from
the United Kingdom to defend herself.
Justice Mohammed Aikawa had
adjourned the case to hear the motion to join Allison-Madueke.
At the resumed trial on Monday,
Mr Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), counsel representing Allison-Madueke (the applicant),
urged the court to grant his application for “joinder of the applicant” in the
sole interest of justice.
“My lord, we have a motion dated
Sept. 29 and an affidavit of 16 paragraphs together with a written address
which we rely on.
“We have received the
counter-affidavit of counsel, but there remains yet one consideration which
should touch conscience of parties.
“In four counts of the charge,
the applicant’s name was mentioned clearly and there is no alteration to the
fact that she has been charged; it simply suggests that it is a consummated
complaint.”
According to Ikpeazu, by the
definition Section of 494 (1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, a
defendant is any person against whom a complaint or charge is made, while a
charge refers to an allegation that any named person has committed an offence.
He argued that from count one to
count four, the name of the applicant was mentioned as an accomplice, adding
that it would be in the interest of justice to join her in the charge.
Persuasively citing the authority
of Frn vs Jide Omokore, FHC/Abj/CR/121/2016, which he argues bears similarity
with the instant case, he noted that the judge had struck out the charges on
similar grounds.
“We will have no objections if
the applicant’s name is extracted from the charge, then, trial can proceed.
Otherwise, she should be included in the charge.
“I know that she will be happy to
come and face the trial,” he told the court.
Objecting to the motion for
joinder, counsel to the first accused, Mr E. O. Shofunde (SAN), informed the
court of his counter-affidavit filed in opposition to the application.
Firstly, Shofunde, argued that
the applicant was not a necessary party to the suit since in the end, the court
will only decide the guilt or innocence of the first and second accused who
were charged.
Again, he contended that by the
combined provisions of Sections 216(2), 221, 273, 274, and 494(1) of the
Criminal Justice Act, only the prosecution could exercise the power to amend a
process during trial.
He argued that it will be
“incongruous” for any other party to seek an amendment of a criminal charge,
adding that the court will not make an order in vain.
Besides, the counsel argued that
it will amount to a waste of precious judicial time if that amendment was
allowed since some progress had been made in the case.
In his response, Oyedepo, agreed
with the first defence counsel and vehemently opposed the application for
joinder, citing the Ewenla Vs State case.
He noted that where trial had
commenced, the state could only amend a charge for purposes of adding offences
and not defendants.
Oyedepo said:“Iif an amendment is
allowed at this stage, it will occasion a miscarriage of justice.”
He added that several attempts
were initially made to interrogate the applicant, but that she fled to London
after she got wind of the move by the EFCC, and has since then, carefully
avoided any meeting with the commission.
According to Oyedepo, it is
misconceived and too late in the day for the applicant to now seek to be joined
in the charge when she is already under investigation in London.
He submitted that whenever the
applicant returns to Nigeria, she can still be tried as time does not run against
the prosecution in criminal trial.
After listening to the counsel,
Justice Aikawa fixed Nov. 1 for ruling.
In the amended charge, Diezani
was alleged to have conspired with Belgore and Sulaiman on or about March 27,
2015 to directly take possession of the sum of N450 million which they
reasonably ought to have known forms part of proceeds of unlawful act.
They were also alleged to have
taken the said funds in cash which exceeded the amount authorized by law
without going through the financial institutions.
Belgore and Sulaiman were also
alleged to have paid the sum of N50 million to a man, Sheriff Shagaya, without
going through any financial institution.
The offences contravened the
provisions of Sections 15(2)(d), 1(a), 16(d) and 18 of the Money Laundering
(Prohibition) Amended Act, 2012. (NAN)
Click to signup for FREE news updates, latest information and hottest gists everydayAdvertise on NigerianEye.com to reach thousands of our daily users
No comments
Post a Comment
Kindly drop a comment below.
(Comments are moderated. Clean comments will be approved immediately)
Advert Enquires - Reach out to us at NigerianEye@gmail.com