The Court of Appeal. Abuja Division, on Wednesday, stopped Justice Okon Abang from conducting the trial of a former governor of Benue State, Gabriel Suswam alongside Okolobia Okpanachi, his former Commissioner of Finance.
The appellate court then ordered that the case should go back to Justice Ahmed Mohammed of the Federal High Court. Abuja.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission ( EFCC) is prosecuting Suswam and Okpanachi on a nine-count charge, bothering on money laundering and diversion of funds to the tune of N3.1 billion.
In a unanimous judgment, the appellant court ordered that the case be sent back to Justice Ahmed Mohammed of the same court for continuation of trial.
Justice Emmanuel Agim who delivered the judgment, also ordered that Justice Mohammed who had shown unjustified reluctance in entertaining the case should give the trial an accelerated hearing.
ALSO READ: Passengers leave Japan virus ship as death toll hits over 2,000 in China
The court held that Justice Mohammed was wrong to have recused himself from conducting the trial on account of fear when all the parties had expressed confidence in him.
Although the court commended Justice Abang who is currently adjudicating on the matter, for showing diligence in the trial, it said it’s the decision to return the case back to Justice Mohammed was to correct the error made by the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court by reassigning the case to him.
This Justice Agim explained that the decision of the Court of Appeal was to strengthen the path of justice and protect the institution of the Judiciary as the Chief Judge misapplied his discretion, when he reassigned the case to Justice Abang, rather than directing Justice Muhammed to continue with the trial.
The court held that although the Chief Judge has the powers under section 19 of the Federal High Court Rules, to assign cases to any Judge of the court, “such discretion must be exercised properly and not recklessly so as to meet the justice of the case.
“Unfortunately, the Chief Judge did not exercise his discretion correctly. The re-assignment of the case to Justice Abang amounted to a transfer in a matter that was part heard.
“Four witnesses had already testified and an accused person is entitled to a trial within a reasonable period of time.”
The court however held that the improper exercise of discretion by the Chief Judge did not in any way rendered the proceedings before Justice Abang a nullity since the action of the Chief Judge was administrative in nature.
“The action of the Chief Judge is an administrative one and therefore, proceedings by Justice Abang cannot amount to a nullity.
“The Federal High Court is one court and the Judges are the same. It is within the administrative powers of the Chief Judge to re-assign cases and any judge has the jurisdiction to hear to cases assigned to them by the Chief Judge of the court.
“Our decision is merely to correct the error by the Chief Judge. Justice Abang was right to assume jurisdiction since he has the statutory duty to obey the Chief Judge.
“Justice Abang has no powers to challenge or question the Chief Judge. He has a duty to take a case assigned to him and deal with it. He did what the law allowed him.
“In fact, if the ruling of Justice Abang did not touch on the reasons given by Justice Mohammed to rescue himself, this appeal would have no life.
The court held that the reasons given by Justice Mohammed to rescue himself from the trial were not tenable in law.
In addition, the court held that his recusal which was done in his chambers and not in open court was a violation of the right to a fair hearing of the defendants.
“We have taken this decision to correct the error of the Chief Judge. Moreso, Justice Mohammed had called four witnesses. If the case will go back to him, the prosecution will proceed with the fifth witness. It is for that reason that we have to allow this appeal.
“It is hereby ordered that the trial of the case should go back to Justice A.R. Mohammed for continuation in an accelerated manner since all the parties have expressed confidence in him.”
The EFCC had on November 2015, arraigned the defendants before Justice Ahmed Mohammed of the Federal High Court in Abuja, and had presented four witnesses before the court.
The matter was to continue after the vacation, embarked by the judiciary in Justice Mohammed’s court, however, the counsels were informed of Justice Mohammed’s withdrawal from the case through hearing notice from Justice Abang’s court.
and then