JUSTICE Olasumbo Goodluck of Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court 5, sitting at Maitama, Abuja, on Tuesday, adjourned till Wednesday, 1 March to enable a one-time Head of Service of Federation, Chief Steve Oronsaye, to make a no-case submission in the charges filed against him by the Federal Government.
Oronsaye is standing trial in a seven-count charge of allegedly diverting N190million public fund to personal use and criminal breach of trust brought against him, on behalf of the Federal Government, by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
The former Head of Service of the Federation, through his counsel, Chief Godwin Kanu Agabi (SAN), in his no-case submission motion filed on 9 December, 2016, is contending that the evidence so far adduced in the charges against him by the prosecution as of the time it closed its case did not link him to the offence.
The defence counsel had filed the motion on December 9, 2016, and was slated for hearing on Tuesday but it was, however, stalled due to late response to Oronsaye’s motion by the prosecution.
At the resumption of the case on Tuesday, the prosecution counsel Farouk Abdullahi, who stood in for the lead prosecution counsel, Mr Ufem Uket, apologised to the court that the Federal Government filed its response to the no-case submission motion same day.
Counsel for Oronsaye, Mr Peter Erivwode, who stood for Chief Agabi (SAN), lamented that despite the fact that the prosecution was served with the motion on December 13, 2016, it only deemed it fit to almost two months ago after.
According to Erivwode, “This was done in bad fate and it is a clear indication to the fact that the prosecution is not prepared to pursue the prosecution diligently.”
He further noted, that the late response was a deliberate ploy to delay the hearing of his client’s motion, adding that the prosecution had been accusing the defence of delaying the trial but with its late response, it was obvious that the prosecution was delaying the matter.
The defence counsel, however, informed the court that he had neither seen nor read the content of the prosecution’s response to the no-case submission motion having just been served on him in the open court and pleaded with the court to grant him a short adjournment to enable the defence respond on point of law.
The prosecution counsel did not object to the request for adjournment having admitted that its response to the no-case submission motion came late.
The presiding judge, Justice Goodluck, who expressed displeasure with the late response of the prosecution to the no-case submission motion, however, adjourned till March 1 for the no-case motion to be determined along with the government’s objection.
The prosecution had predicated its objection to the no-case submission on the ground that it is unmeritorious and liable to be dismissed by the court, claiming that the evidence so far in the case was not only credible, but also directly link the defendant to the offence.
He urged the court to dismiss the no-case motion and order the defendant to enter his defence.