The arraignment of the immediate past Governor of Kogi State, Alhaji Yahaya Bello, over the alleged N80 billion money laundering charges made against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), scheduled for tomorrow (Wednesday) may be stalled again, as Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court, Abuja, has been asked to adjourn indefinitely, proceedings in the charge, pending the determination of an appeal filed by the former governor, which is pending at the Court of Appeal, Abuja.
In the Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CR/535/2024, in which the trial Judge, Justice Emeka Nwite is being accused of miscarriage of justice, Bello is, through his Counsels, Musa Yakubu (SAN) & Co, seeking the setting aside of the Warrant of Arrest believed to have been illegally issued against him on April 17, 2024, as well as return of the case file to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, for re-assignment to another Judge.
According to the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN),
the Appeal was filed against the decisions of the trial Federal High Court, Abuja, in Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/98/2024.
The former governor is also seeking an order of the Appeal Court, setting aside service of the EFCC Charge on him by substituted means, including the entire proceedings already conducted in the case.
In a letter to Justice Emeka Nwite, dated July 12, 2024, counsel to Bello, Musa Yakubu (SAN) requested that further proceedings in the charge be adjourned sine die, pending the determination of the appeal filed by the former governor, which is pending at the Court of Appeal, Abuja.
The letter obtained by NAN and a copy of which was sent to the National Judicial Council (NJC) and Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, was in response to a letter to Justice Nwite, by the EFCC, dated July 8, 2024 and filed on the July 10, 2024, according to information from the court registry.
In the letter, the EFCC requested for a variation of the earlier warrant of arrest issued against Bello, additionally requesting that the various security agencies be specifically directed to carry out the earlier arrest.
Responding to the EFCC’s application, Bello’s counsel urged the Court to decline the request and await the outcome of the appeal pending at the Court of Appeal over the controversial warrant of arrest and other related pronouncements of the trial Court.
According to counsel to Bello; “Drawing from the position of the law as contained in Order 4 Rule 11(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021 and the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Vab Petroleum INC V. Momah [Supra] and a litany of other cases too numerous to mention here; we respectfully urge this Honourable Court ex debito justitiae to: “set aside and expunge from its records the proceedings of the 27th June, 2024, including any ruling, order or directive, same having been conducted in the face of the Defendant’s appeal entered on the 24th of May, 2024 and therefore reached per incuriam;
“Refuse to countenance the application of the Complainant made vide the letter filed on the 10th of July, 2024 and or in the alternative refer same to the Court of Appeal for determination;
“Adjourn further proceedings in this charge sine die pending the determination of Appeal No: CA/ABJ/CR/536/2024 entered by the Defendant and pending at the Court of Appeal, Abuja.”
The letter read in part; “The Defendant to the Charge had on the 17th of May, 2024 filed a notice of appeal against the ruling of this Honourable Court made on the 10th of May, 2024 refusing to discharge brevi manu the warrant of arrest issued against the Defendant.
“The Defendant pursuant to the said notice of appeal, compiled and transmitted record of appeal to the Court of Appeal and entered on the 24th of May, 2024, Appeal No: CA/ABJ/CR/536/2024.
“Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Complainant has now filed the above referenced application seeking for the amendment of the warrant of arrest which was hitherto directed to the complainant only, to have it extended to the heads of other security and law enforcement agencies listed in the prosecuting Counsel’s letter.
“My Lord, this Honourable Court cannot countenance the application or do anything with respect to the aforesaid warrant of arrest or conduct further proceedings in this charge in view of the provisions of Order 4 Rule 11(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021 which is to the effect that:
“After an appeal has been entered and until it has been finally disposed of, the Court shall be seized of the whole of the proceedings as between the parties thereto.’ Except as may be otherwise provided in these Rules, every application therein shall be made to the Court and not to the lower Court.
“The warrant of arrest upon which the Complainant’s application is predicated, is subject of appeal in Appeal No: CA/ABJ/CR/536/2024 and by the above reproduced provision of the Court of Appeal rules, this Honourable Court has become functus officio and no longer has the jurisdiction to entertain any application or do anything touching on the warrant of arrest issued on the 17th of April, 2024 as the Court of Appeal is now seized of the matter. By virtue of the appeal entered by the Defendant, the warrant of arrest subject of the Complainant’s application is now in total abeyance pending the determination of the Defendant’s appeal one way or another.
“To take any contrary step to the provisions of Order 4 Rule 11(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021, would be tantamount to undermining the Constitutional guaranteed Appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal under Section 240 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and against the grain of settled position of the law established by the Supreme Court of Nigeria to the effect that, when an appeal has been entered, the lower Court no longer has the jurisdiction to do anything in the matter and ought to abide by the decision of the Appellate Court as any step taken by the trial Court in the face of such appeal is a nullity. see the case ofVab Petroleum INC V. Momah [20131 14 NWLR Part 1374 P. 284.”
Furthermore, the attention of Justice Emeka Nwite was drawn to a similar case, also a criminal appeal,’ in which Justice Ismail Ijelu of the High Court of Lagos State stayed further proceedings, the Appellant having entered an appeal in Appeal No: CAIL/1159/2023 Between Chief Cletus Ibeto V. Federal Republic of Nigeria, challenging the warrant of arrest earlier issued against him, in the face of his preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the lower Court to entertain the charge filed by the Complainant against him.
“The trial High Court, a Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction with Your Lordship’s Court has stayed further proceedings in the charge pending the determination of the appeal entered by the Appellant therein.
“The Complainant’s application to you therefore, ought not to have been filed at all or if need be, ought to be brought before the Court of Appeal, Abuja which is now seized of the matter. The Complainant’s Counsel as a senior member of the Bar is under a duty to have brought the appeal entered by the Defendant to the attention of this Honourable Court even during the proceedings of 27th of June, 2024, is rather proceeding egregiously as if he is oblivious of and impervious to the appeal entered by the Defendant to the Charge before your Lordship’s Court.
“We therefore respectfully urge your Lordship not to be misled sir or hoodwinked by the Complainant into a head on collision with the Court of Appeal, but rather tow the above stated and well-established course of action.
“To do otherwise, would be an affront on the hallowed principle of judicial hierarchy and stare decisis which is the very foundation of our legal system,” the letter read further.
