Justice Nnamdi Dimgba of the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Wednesday expressed his reservation over the lack of seriousness in the prosecution of the former Minister of Interior, Abba Moro, Anesthesia Daniel-Nwobia (former Permanent Secretary in the ministry) and a Deputy Director in the Ministry, Felix O. Alayabami following the 2014 recruitment tragedy of the Nigerian Immigration Service (NIS).
They are standing trial alongside a private company, Drexel Nigeria Ltd over their roles in the botched March 15, 2014 immigration recruitment exercise that killed no fewer than 20 job seekers across the country.
When the matter came up yesterday, Elizabeth Alabi, who stood in for Yusuf Aliyu for the prosecution, told the court that the 4th prosecution witness, a bank compliance Officer slated to testify was unavoidably absent in court as he was subpoenaed to appear before the Federal High Court in Lagos.
The counsel said the prosecution was unable to have audience with the witness because of the Sallah holiday and urged the court for a new date.
Justice Dimgba who frowned at the prosecution over failure to produce a witness in court for continuation of trial threatened to take necessary action should the witness fail to appear on the next adjourned date fixed for October 4, 2017.
He said the holidays would not have been an excuse if the council had done a proper homework, adding that, “You ought to arrange your case accordingly, despite the holiday. If I strike out the case for lack of diligent prosecution you will raise all kind of hell. The press would feast on it, probably accuse me of collecting money and we have no way to reply. If next time the prosecution is not ready, I will know what to do,” Dimgba said.
Counsel to Abba Moro, Chief A.T. Kehinde (SAN), in his submission, objected to the application for adjournment on the ground that the reasons for it was not genuine.
In the alternative, he demanded that the prosecution counsel should be made to write an undertaking that she will produce the witness on the next adjourned date.
Chris Uche, counsel to the second defendant (Mrs. Nwobia) observed that if the defendants were the one asking for adjournment it would be a different thing in the media.
“When it was adjourned in May, they said they have witnesses. Assuming they were unable to bring one, what of the other witnesses. I want the court to take judicial notice that they are the one delaying that case,” he said.
Sunday Ameh (SAN) representing Drexel Nigerian Ltd asked the court to issue a warrant of arrest on prosecution witness for disobeying a subpoena issued by the court.
Ameh submitted that a subpoena is a command issued by the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and not an invitation to a party.
He added that since the witness disobeyed the subpoena, the court should teach him a bitter lesson by issuing a warrant of his arrest.
In his ruling, Justice Dimgba pleaded with the defense lawyers to keep their powder dry and see what will happen on the next adjourned date, slated for October 4, 2017 for continuation of trial.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had accused the defendants of defrauding each applicant of N1, 000 which amounted to N676, 675, 000.
The anti-graft agency is also accusing the defendants of flouting the Public Procurement Act, No. 65 of 2007 in the award of the contract for the organization of the recruitment test to Drexel Tech Nigeria Ltd.
The EFCC said Drexel EFCC had no prior advertisement and no needs assessment and procurement plan was carried out before the contract was awarded.
According to the anti-graft agency, the contract was awarded through selective tendering procedure by invitation of four firms without seeking the approval of the Bureau for Public Procurement (BPP), contrary to sections 40, 42 and 43 of the Public Procurement Act, No. 65 of 2007 and punishable under section 58 of the same act.
Drexel is also alleged to be unregistered and had no legal capacity to enter into the said contract.
It was also alleged that, no budgetary provision for the exercise in the 2014 Federal Capital budget hence the applicants were made to bear the responsibility of funding the project without approval of the Board contrary to section 22(5) of the Independent Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Act 2000.
and then