The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) yesterday urged the Federal High Court in Abuja to cite two Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) – Ifedayo Adedipe and Abdulwahab Muhammed – for contempt.

It is for their failure to honour their commitment to produce the immediate-past Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello for arraignment.

Justice Emeka Nwite had adjourned until yesterday based on the SANs’ promise to produce Bello, who was absent again.
The judge adjourned till July 17 to rule on EFCC’s application that the two defence counsel be cited for contempt.

The former Kogi governor rather wrote to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, praying that he be tried in Lokoja, the state capital, for the N80.2 billion laundering charge brought against him by the EFCC.Bello’s request is contained in a letter written by Muhammed.

The ex-governor stated that since the funds he allegedly laundered belonged to the state, the capital of Kogi should serve as the proper venue for his trial.

Part of the letter reads: “We hereby apply for the transfer of the case from the Abuja judicial division of the Federal High Court, where it is pending presently, to the Lokoja division of the Federal High Court pursuant to the provisions of Section 45 of the Federal High Court (Establishment) Act.

“The proper court and venue for the trial of the instant case is not the Federal High Court, Abuja judicial division, where the case is currently pending, but the Federal High Court, Lokoja judicial division in Kogi State, where all the alleged offences of money laundering and misappropriation allegedly took place.

“My lord, the buying of property is not money laundering, it is the conversion and or transfer of funds from Kogi State Government’s bank accounts, which is a proceed of the alleged unlawful act that is money laundering.

“All the funds the complainant alleged to have been laundered by the defendant are monies of the Government of Kogi State, whose state capital is in Lokoja.
“All the bank accounts from which the said monies are stated to be laundered as shown in the proof of evidence are domiciled with the branches of the respective banks in Lokoja, Kogi State.

“The institution of the proceedings in the Abuja division of the Federal High Court by the EFCC is forum shopping.

“The law is settled that generally, the Federal High Court’s jurisdiction is one all over the federation, the court is divided into judicial divisions and where a crime is committed in any of the divisions, criminal proceedings thereof must be initiated and prosecuted in that very judicial division where the act or omission or the elements of the offence were allegedly committed.

“The defendant was the Governor of Kogi State, the charges and the proof of evidence indicate a criminal breach of trust, criminal misappropriation and money laundering in respect of the statutory funds of Kogi State.

“These are the alleged predicate offences and all their elements took place in Kogi State, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, Lokoja judicial division.

“We humbly urge my Lord, to transfer the subject charge to the Lokoja division of the Federal High Court which is the division with the territorial jurisdiction to try the case.”

The Chief Judge has directed the EFCC to, within six days, respond to Bello’s request.
A June 14 letter from the CJ’s office, addressed to EFCC counsel Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), was signed by the Special Assistant to the Chief Judge, Joshua Ibrahim Aji.
It reads: “You will find attached the copy of a letter by counsel to the defendant on the above subject matter, dated 10th June 2024.

“I am directed by His Lordship, the Honourable, the Chief Judge, to forward the letter to you for your response within six days of receipt.”
Yesterday, Adedipe referred to both letters when the case came up for arraignment.

The SAN had, when the case last came up on June 13, vowed that Bello, who had consistently avoided court despite the issuance of a bench warrant for his arrest, would attend court on the next date.

The court scheduled arraignment for yesterday, believing that his lawyer would honour his words to produce Bello.

When the case was called, Adedipe said given the letter written by his client and the CJ’s directive, the issue of Bello’s appearance in court would take the back seat.

He suggested that the court should await the outcome of Bello’s request.

Prosecuting counsel Kemi Pinheiro (SAN) faulted Adedipe’s suggestion.
Pinheiro noted that the case was scheduled for arraignment based on the assurance by the defence lawyer to produce the defendant in court.

He added: “The letter to the Chief Judge of this court does not discharge the undertaking. It is not a judicial decision.”

Pinheiro argued that since Adedipe had defaulted in his undertaking by not producing his client as promised, the court should consider his action as professional misconduct and contempt of court.

He added that since the defendant was not produced despite the undertaking given by two senior advocates – Adedipe and Muhammed, he would apply that the duo be cited for contempt.

Adedipe rejected Pinheiro’s submission and indicated his willingness to withdraw from the case.

He accused the prosecuting counsel of trying to trade blames where none existed.
Adedipe denied giving any undertaking, but his claim was punctured.

The judge read to court’s record indicating that it was based on the SAN’s undertaking that the case was adjourned.

Justice Emeka Nwite further adjourned till July 17 to rule on Pinheiro’s application that both SANs be cited for contempt and the arraignment of Bello.
A person found guilty of contempt of court can be sentenced to prison for up to six months or fined.