Yahaya Bello, the former Governor of Kogi state, has expressed his reluctance to appear at the Federal High Court in Abuja to face the 19-count charge filed against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). Bello, who was absent during his arraignment on April 23, instructed his legal team to address the court on his behalf. His lawyer, Adeola Adedipe, SAN, informed the court that his client would have attended the proceedings but was apprehensive about being arrested.
Adedipe submitted, “The defendant wants to come to court but he is afraid that there is an order of arrest hanging on his head.” He then requested the court to set aside the ex parte order of arrest issued against the former governor, arguing that the charge had not been properly served to his client at the time the arrest warrant was issued.
According to Adedipe, the EFCC Act, enacted by the Federal Government through the National Assembly, did not involve consultation with the 36 states of the federation. He contended that Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, required the ratification of the Act by the various Houses of Assembly before it could become operative. Bello’s lawyer emphasized the significance of this matter, stating, “This is a very serious matter that borders on the constitution and the tenets of federalism. It has to be resolved because as it stands, the EFCC is an illegal organization.”
In response, the EFCC’s lawyer, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, urged the court to reject the application, asserting that the arrest warrant should not be set aside until Bello appears for his trial. Pinheiro argued that the defendant cannot evade the proceedings and file multiple applications, stating, “He cannot ask for the arrest order to be vacated until and when the defendant is present in court for his arraignment. He cannot be heard on that applied application. The main issue should be ascertaining the whereabouts of the defendant. All these applications he is filing are nothing but dilatory tactics intended to delay his arraignment and frustrate the proceedings. If he wants the order of arrest to be discharged, let him come here and make the application. Our position is that the defendant should be denied the right of being heard until he is physically present before this court.”
Pinheiro further argued that, in accordance with Section 396 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, the court cannot effectively assume jurisdiction to decide any application or objection in the matter until the defendant is arraigned.
The EFCC assured the court that it would not execute the arrest warrant if the defendant’s counsel guarantees his presence on the next adjourned date. Pinheiro stated, “If he gives an undertaking that his client will be in court on the next date, I can assure him that the arrest warrant will not be executed. If he gives that assurance, as the prosecution, I will personally apply for the warrant to be discharged.”
The EFCC also informed the court that the issue of its legality had already been settled by the Supreme Court. The charges brought before the court are not against a state or House of Assembly but against an individual accused of money laundering and the misappropriation of public funds. The EFCC’s lawyer added that the individual in question had allegedly used public funds to purchase properties in Lagos and Maitama, as well as transfer funds to overseas accounts.
