COURT REBUKES ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION, FINES AGENCY OVER GODWIN EMEFIELE TRIAL DELAY
Read Time:2 Minute, 5 Second
By: Fasasi Hammad
A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory sitting in Maitama, Abuja, on Tuesday ordered the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission to pay N500,000 for delaying the trial of former Central Bank of Nigeria governor, Godwin Emefiele.
Trial judge, Hamza Muazu, imposed the cost after the prosecution failed to present its witness at the resumed hearing.
While granting what he termed a final adjournment, Justice Muazu cautioned the prosecution to ensure its witnesses are present at the next hearing.
Emefiele is facing a 20-count amended charge marked FCT/HC/CR/577/2023, bordering on alleged criminal breach of trust, forgery, abuse of office, conspiracy, and obtaining money under false pretences.
READ MORE…
PRESIDENT BOLA TINUBU ARRIVES UK FOR HISTORIC STATE VISIT HOSTED BY KING CHARLES III
Among the allegations, he is accused of securing $6.23 million under the pretext of funding international election observers for the 2023 general election, and of conferring undue advantages on two firms—April 1616 Nigeria Ltd and Architekon Nigeria Ltd.
At the hearing, prosecuting counsel, Abba Mohammed (SAN), told the court that the prosecution’s witness, Deputy Commissioner of Police Elohor Edwin Okpoziakeo, was absent despite being duly informed.
He explained that the witness was attending a separate matter at the Gwagwalada Division of the FCT High Court involving a personal case against a commercial bank, where a garnishee order had been placed on his account.
Mohammed added that efforts had been made to secure the witness’s presence, including writing to the Inspector-General of Police through the Force Headquarters, following a directive issued on Monday.
He subsequently applied for an adjournment to enable the witness to testify.
However, defence counsel, Matthew Burkaa (SAN), opposed the request, citing Sections 396(3) and (4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, which limit adjournments in criminal trials to five from arraignment to judgment.
Burkaa argued that the prosecution had already exceeded this limit, having obtained about eight adjournments since the trial began, and accused it of failing to properly manage its case. He noted that the witness had been listed in the proof of evidence since January 2024, giving ample time to ensure his attendance.
The defence therefore urged the court to reject the application for further adjournment.
In his ruling, Justice Muazu acknowledged the provisions of the ACJA on adjournments but held that the court retains discretionary powers to grant adjournments in the interest of justice.
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0