THE trial of the former governor of Jigawa State, Sule Lamido before Justice Babatunde Quadri of the Federal High Court in Abuja was on Wednesday stalled, as a result of his detention in Jigawa State.
Lamido is being tried on a four count charge in Dutse, the Jigawa State capital for allegedly inciting his supporters to violence, in the build up to local government elections set to hold in Jigawa on July 1, 2017.
Having been arraigned in Jigawa, he was remanded in Prison custody, pending the determination of his bail application which was slated for May, 4, 2017.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), had in September 2015, arraigned Lamido, Aminu Lamido, Mustapha Lamido, Wada Abubakar, Bamaina holdings limited, Bamaina company Nigeria limited, Bamaina Aluminium limited, Speeds international limited and Darlington Agoha on a 27-count charge of abuse of office and money laundering before Justice Adeniyi Ademola, before he was suspended.
When the matter came up yesterday, counsel representing the defendants, Mr Joe Agi (SAN), informed the court of an application seeking for an order that the case file be returned back to Justice Ademola, on the grounds that the re-assignment of the matter by the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Ibrahim Auta was contrary to law.
In the motion on notice brought pursuant to Section 98(2), 396(3) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), the defendants argued that “the prosecution is against the continuation of the trial before Justice Ademola, inspite of the number of witnesses so far called and the length of time already exhausted during the trial”.
However, in a letter dated April 11, 2017, signed by one Chile Okoroma from the EFCC to the Chief Judge, he averred that even though about 18 witnesses had been called by the prosecution before the trial of Justice Ademola and Mr Agi, it will not be in the interest of Justice for the case to be transferred back to Justice Ademola’s court for continuation of trial.
“This is because of the negative impressions the public may have about the outcome of the trial, whether the defendants are acquitted or convicted. In addition, public perception may put the Judge under intense pressure, which may affect his judgement,” the letter stated.
However, Mr Agi in his application argued that the trial denovo in the circumstances of this case will be prejudicial to the rights of the defendants, who are entitled to have their case heard and determined within a reasonable time.
“That even though the prosecution is predicating its opposition on conjecture to wit the impression of public which has no place in law, the transfer of a part heard criminal is not done”, the defendant insisted.
Agi had, earlier informed the court about the present predicament of the first defendant, having been in detention pending his bail, he could not be produced in court to face his ongoing trial, of which the defendant is expected to be present in court at every of its sitting.
Having heard submissions of parties in the matter, the trial Judge, Justice Quadri adjourned the matter till May 11, 2017.
and then