Justice Okong Abang of the Federal High Court, Abuja, on Friday fixed September 30 for ruling on whether the trial of former governor of Benue State, Gabriel Suswam and his Commissioner for Finance,, Omodachi Okolobia, should start afresh in his court or be returned to the former court for continuation.
Suswam and Okolobia are facing a nine-count charge of money laundering and diversion of funds, preferred against them by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC.).
The Commission had in November 2015, arraigned the duo before Justice A. R. Mohammed of the Federal High Court, Abuja, on the same charges and had presented four witnesses before the court.
The matter was to continue after the vacation by the judiciary, however, both the prosecution and defence teams were informed of Justice Mohammed’s withdrawal from the case through a hearing notice from Justice Abang’s court.
A statement issued on Friday by the EFCC’s Head of Media and Publicity, Wilson Uwujaren, said the defendants were to take their pleas on September 24, but could not as the defence team opposed the application.
Counsel to Suswan, C..E. Ogbozor, at the resumed sitting on Friday,
urged the court to decline jurisdiction and return the case file to the
Honourable Acting Chief Judge of the Federal High Court.
Ogbozor told
the court that she was not aware of Justice Mohammed’s disqualification
of himself from conducting the trial, adding that it amounted to a
breach of the right to a fair hearing, should an order of transfer of
charges be made by Justice Muhammed without the notice of the
defendants.
She argued that the prosecution having called four witnesses, cannot be allowed to commence de novo.
He referred to Section 1, 98, 99 and 396(7) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, where if a case has been partly heard, cannot start de novo, stating that the only exception was when a trial judge ceases to hold office by act of law or act of God.
The prosecution counsel, O. A. Atolagbe, while opposing the defence
counsel’s argument, urged the court to refuse the application adding
that the crucial question to be asked, was whether a judge could be
compelled to hear a case against his wish.
He recalled that Justice
Mohammed on June 6, this year withdrew from the case and sent back the
case to the Chief Judge, stating that both counsel had expressed
absolute confidence in him to adjudicate in the matter.
He said the case file was returned to him after the Chief Judge acceded to the request.
