The trial judge, Justice Christy Dabup, who reserved ruling on the four-year case said the date will be communicated to the parties involved in the suit
The state high court arrived at the decision after both the prosecution and the defence counsels adopted their written addresses.
At the resumed hearing of the case in Jos on Thursday, lead counsel to the EFCC, Rotimi Jacobs, SAN brought two applications asking the court to grant it leave to appeal an earlier ruling by the court against the antigraft agency during the trial within trial.
However, counsel to the second defendant, Sunday Odey, opposed the applications and urged the court to go ahead with the business of the day since the applications had no bearing on the adoption of their final addresses which were slated for the court’s proceedings
After a hot argument between both parties, Counsel to the EFCC eventually conceded to the defense counsels that the business of the day which was the adoption of written addresses should go on as slated.
In his address, Lead Counsel to Jang, Mike Ozekhome, SAN urged the court to dismiss all the charges against his client and set him free because the prosecution had not proven his case beyond any reasonable doubts
Ozekhome said, “We only have one question we have formulated concerning this case. Of all the monies which they claimed my client took, where are they? We took all the 14 witnesses called by the prosecution and asked them one after the other and none of them said they saw or link any money in my client’s bank account, his wife or any of his relatives or anyone else. Where are these billions?
“The EFCC just created its own offence in order to get at the defendant.
“Without regard to the court, the EFCC instead of complying with the court order to file 30-page written address decided to file 151-page written applications. In spite of that, the prosecution filed another 37-page reply making 188 pages. I think the learned council ought to have sought leave of the court to apologise. I’m surprised that the entire address suffers repetitiveness and verbosity all geared toward pulling the wool over the eyes of the court.
“I urge my Lord to discharge and acquit my client of all the charges and set him free because an address no matter how brilliant can not take the place of legal proof and evidence ”
The Lead prosecution counsel, Rotimi Jacobs, SAN in urging the court to uphold his case said “I did not go against my Lordship’s order because no such order for a specific number of pages for the written address was given by the court.
“We did not base our own address on our own formulation but by the evidence given to the court.
“The question of whether any money was seen in any place is not the case of the prosecution. The second defendant admitted that monies were withdrawn and taken to him (Jang)
“What is he (Jang) doing with N5 bn as governor between January and May 2015? It’s so clear that the defendants have no answer to the prosecution’s case and at the end of the day, justice will prevail”
Counsel to the second defendant in his address also urged the court to dismiss the prosecution’s case and insisted that his client did nothing wrong to warrant his prosecution.
Justice Christy Dabup thereafter adjourned the case for ruling saying “the ruling for this case will be at a date to be communicated later “
