In this piece Onozure Dania examines the legality of filing multiple charges in different courts against alleged offenders
Soon after the removal of Mr Godwin Emefiele as the governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria by President Bola Tinubu on June 9, 2023, the Department of State Services arrested him. On July 25, 2023, the DSS arraigned him for the first time before Justice Nicholas Oweibo at the Federal High Court in Lagos for illegal possession of firearms.
In August 2023, the DSS withdrew its charges against Emefiele. Less than one hour after Emefiele was released by the DSS on October 26, 2023, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission detained him.
The anti-graft agency subsequently arraigned Emefiele in November 2023 before Justice Hamza Muazu of the Federal Territory High Court on charges bordering on procurement, fraud, and forgery of the signature of ex-President Muhammadu Buhari.
On Monday, April 8, 2024, Emefiele was arraigned for the third time before Justice R.A. Oshodi of the Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja, Lagos for an alleged $4.5bn and N2.8bn fraud. The anti-graft agency arraigned him on an amended 26-count bordering on “abuse of office, accepting gratifications, corrupt demand, receiving property fraudulently obtained, and conferring corrupt advantage.”
Counsel for the ex-CBN governor, Mr Abdulakeem Labi-Lawal, at the Monday proceedings, hinted that the ex-CBN governor would be up for a fresh arraignment between April 25 and 26, 2024.
The EFCC had also filed multiple charges against a former Director-General of the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency, Dr Patrick Akpobolokemi, over the alleged diversion of multi-billion naira from the agency.
Akpobolokemi was arraigned by the commission six different times on six different charges before three different judges in Lagos State between December 3, 2015 and June 3, 2016.
He spent most of the second half of 2015 and the entire 2016 either in custody or shuttling between courtrooms.
The EFCC first arraigned him on December 3, 2015, before Justice Saliu Saidu (now retired) of the Federal High Court in Lagos.
Just like Emefiele, Akpobolokemi was arraigned alongside seven other NIMASA officials and two companies on 30 counts of alleged diversion of N3.4bn from the maritime agency. The fraud, claimed the EFCC, was perpetrated within the agency between December 2013 and July 2015.
Akpobolokemi’s second arraignment was the following day, December 4, 2015, before Justice Ibrahim Buba of the Federal High Court in Lagos. His third arraignment was on January 25, 2016, before Justice Raliat Adebiyi of the Lagos State High Court in Igbosere. His fourth and fifth arraignments were on March 22, 2016, and April 18, 2016, respectively before Justice Buba. Akpobolokemi’s sixth arraignment was on June 3, 2016, before Justice Saidu.
A former Attorney General of Lagos State, Mr Olasupo Shasore (SAN), has also faced multiple charges that were later withdrawn. He was arraigned by the anti-graft agency on October 20, 2022, on four-count bordering on money laundering to the tune of $100, 000 before Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke of the Federal High Court in Lagos State.
Shasore’s second arraignment was on the next day October 21, 2022, before the Lagos State Special Offences Court, Ikeja on two counts of money laundering and corrupt offers, before Justice Mojisola Dada.
His third arraignment was on November 4, 2022, bordering on 14-count alongside his company, Middlesex Investment Ltd, over alleged N159,700,000, and $60,000 money laundering before Justice Iyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court in Abuja. The charges against him were later withdrawn by the EFCC on December 1, 2023.
A former Minister of Aviation, Femi Fani-Kayode, was also first arraigned by the EFCC on December 23, 2008, before Justice Ramat Mohammed of the Federal High Court in Lagos on 47 counts. He was re-arraigned for the second time before Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako of the same court on February 16, 2012, following the transfer of Justice Mohammed out of Lagos.
The accused was again re-arraigned before Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia on February 11, 2013, following the transfer of Murtala-Nyako. On March 6, 2014, Fani-Kayode was again arraigned before Ajumogobia, following the amendment of 47-count by the EFCC to 40 counts. Ajumogobia is the third judge to sit over the case.
The anti-graft agency also arraigned the former minister on money laundering to the tune of N4.6bn but the case was later withdrawn and taken to the Abuja Federal High Court division.
Speaking on the filing of multiple charges by the anti-graft agency, a Professor of Law and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Sam Erugo, states that the EFCC has discretion in filing charges and can decide to file different charges in different courts having jurisdiction.
Erugo says, “For instance, the latest charge against Godwin Emefiele before the Lagos State High Court suggests that there are elements of the offence committed in Lagos.
“I believe the different charges in different courts are strategic to ensure successful prosecution, in some, if not all, the cases. This is not a multiplicity of charges in law.”
Similarly, Mr Emeka Ogbegolu (SAN) says there is prosecutorial discretion when offences are not committed together.
Ogbegolu explained that when different offences are disclosed against one person, the prosecution can choose where to charge the offender, particularly as it relates to the jurisdiction and geographical location where the crime was suspected to have been committed.
“I don’t have the details of these charges and what they pertain to, but I know that where the defendant feels that the prosecution has abused the privileges or discretion and is using multiple charges to frustrate them, they can apply to the court to consolidate the charges and face one indictment.
“The defence knows what to do, where there is an abuse of discretion or when the design is intended to frustrate the defence,” he said.
Another lawyer, Dr Yemi Omodele, stated that the venue or forum for filing cases, be it criminal or civil, is determined by where the cause of action arose or where the crime was committed.
He added that the filing of some charges against the former CBN governor in Lagos and Abuja might not be out of place because what investigations revealed would direct the prosecuting team on where charges are to be filed.
“I think the case of Ibori vs FRN addressed the issue,” he says.
According to him, however, if investigation reveals that the alleged crimes were committed within the same location or jurisdiction, yet different charges are filed, the prosecuting team may file a single charge with different counts in a jurisdiction.
“In criminal jurisprudence, offences committed on different dates, times, and places cannot be merged in a charge to avoid defective charges which may bring about jurisdictional issues.
“It is wrong for persons to say multiple charges are filed when they are not investigators or prosecutors who know the detailed facts of the cases,” Omodele added.
Also, Mr Olanrewaju Ajanaku, another lawyer, said filing multiple charges on the same offences and facts would fail if taken to another court.
According to him, the charges being filed against Emefiele by the EFCC are not in entirety the same.
He said, “In Abuja court, there are forces behind the scenes working for him seemingly so. They are also thinking that we have human beings behind all these persecutions. They are also thinking aloud and showing it aloud that if (peradventure) he has people behind him who could call the shots over certain decisions to be made in the judiciary, it will be limited to those places in Abuja.
“But when it comes to Lagos State, so to speak, is a Yoruba state, they want to say, look they have dragged him in too many places, people have heard about the allegations against him, and by the time they bring him to a place like Lagos State which they feel is not going to be sentimental in any nature, we would kind of find a way to nip him, or hold on to him.
“Mind you sentiments are not law. You need to come and prove the offences as alleged against him beyond a reasonable doubt before the court.
“I don’t believe that the charges are all the same. But if they are all the same they will all fall like a pack of cards. Once one is gone all others would fall woefully. That’s what I see they don’t want to put their eggs in one basket.
“Charge him here for money laundering, charge him in Abuja for sabotaging the economy, charge him elsewhere for not following due process, in all these things you can charge money laundering separately but not following due process or putting yourself in an advantageous position to gain profits you can charge those two together in the Federal High Court in Abuja.”
Responding to the issue of filing multiple charges against the same defendant, the EFCC spokesperson, Mr Dele Oyewole, stated that it is purely a legal matter and the issue of jurisdiction is important, adding that there is nothing as multiple charges as every charge is predicated on an offence.
He said, “It is not a matter of bringing forward multiple charges to waste the time of the court. It is about the diversity of the offences. It is about the jurisdiction and it is also about the opinion of our lawyers as to the workability of all of those charges in court.
“We are not frivolous. Our charges are always based on the existing facts on the ground and that is why we have been recording very impressive successes in our prosecution. So we are not just doing it for doing sake, there are basis for it.”
Commenting on the charges that are sometimes withdrawn, Oyewole said, “When charges are before the court, it’s not for anyone to speculate that the charges may be thrown out.
“There is no time you would see the court throwing away our charges. If you study the history of our prosecution we are always shining in court.”
The spokesman also stated that “investigations usually determine what happens to our charges.
“If in the light of trial, we can uncover new facts, we may amend charges, and amending charges means that some may be dropped, new charges may be brought forward, depending on the strength of our investigation.
“It is an ongoing thing as long as the trial is on, we may approach the court and say in the light of these new facts we have, we want to amend the charges. If the court obliges that we do it, we will do it. But it is in the overall interest of justice and it is in the overall interest of the nation to ensure that justice is served, in any of the matters that we place before the court.”
