The trial judge, Justice Emeka Nwite, while delivering a ruling in an application for a stay of proceedings by Bello’s lead counsel, Mohammed AbdulWahab, held that proceedings would continue despite the appeal filed by the defendant before the Court of Appeal.
Justice Nwite said, “The grant of Stay of Proceedings is at the court’s discretion. And since it is an issue of discretion no one can give an authority for the judge to rely on. The judge only needs to exercise this power judicially.”
He held that the appeal lodged by the defendant was only a part of his plan to delay proceedings.
Justice Nwite held that there have been previous Court of Appeal judgments on such matters.
He declared that the proceeding could not be stayed as it is a criminal case and not a civil case.
At the start of the day’s proceeding, one of Bello’s counsel, Adeola Adedipe had informed the court that he wished to not be part of the proceedings.
Recall that at the previous sitting, Adedipe informed the court of his wish to withdraw his appearance for the defendant.
Justice Nwite in his ruling Wednesday, granted the application for withdrawal of the defendant’s counsel, Adedipe, from the case and referred the matter of misconduct to the LPDC to investigate possible infractions.
Justice Nwite said, having stated the law, “the question is whether there was an undertaking by Wahab, and Adedipe, which was breached to amount to contempt of court.”
Meanwhile, AbdulWahab had earlier told the court that they had applied to stay proceedings on the case, pending the determination of the appeal before the Appeal Court on an arrest warrant earlier granted by the trial court and other rulings.
He argued that the court could not proceed on the matter until the pending appeal was determined, citing authorities.
“The Affidavit filed on 16th July 2024, is to bring to your lordship’s attention the notices of appeal filed against your lordship’s ruling on 23rd April and 10th May. This appeal was transmitted to the Court of Appeal 23rd of May and the appellant’s brief of argument was filed on the 31st of May. A motion for stay has also been filed at the Court of Appeal. The two appeals challenge the jurisdiction of this court to entertain the charges ab initio”.
The EFCC lead counsel, Kemi Pinehero, however, vehemently opposed the defendant’s application.
He argued that the defendant had not shown any court of appeal document showing that the court wanted the lower court to stay the proceeding.
He said “An appeal is elementary, filing an appeal even in civil cases does not counter a criminal case on the ground. Whether they have appealed or not whether affidavit or any other process the court must rule as the proceeding cannot be stayed”.
Justice Nwite asked whether, having received the application and affidavit, and being aware of the pending appeal, it would not amount to judicial rascality for his court to continue proceedings on the matter.
“Won’t it amount to judicial rascality to continue this case when there’s an issue of jurisdiction?” The judge asked.
But the prosecution counsel, Pinheiro, said “It is not really an issue of jurisdiction”.
Citing Section 40, he said the mere filing of an affidavit could not suffice as the case was not a civil case.
He urged the court to stick to the matter of the day, which was the ruling on the arguments presented on June 27.
AbdulWahab, however, told the court that the Judge was misled on the 27th of June and that the request was for the proceedings of that day to be expunged.
He urged the Judge to expunge from his record, the proceedings of June 27 as the appeal had been filed before the proceeding.
“We urge your lordship to expunge the record of the proceedings on 27th June because at that time an appeal had been entered and the proceedings should not have happened. The court was functus officio,” Wahab, argued.
“They are asking your Lordship to undo the work of the Court of Appeal. To avoid controversy and in order not to render the appeal nugatory, this should not continue. Even if Yahaya Bello were to be here, you cannot arraign him,” he argued.
He said insisting on hearing the matter would bring his lordship into conflict with the Court of Appeal.
He said, “Your lordship is functus officio. Heaven will not fall if he awaits the court of appeal. We are relying on the provision of the Constitution which overrides the EFCC act which the prosecution is relying on”.
Pinheiro stated that one of the appeals sought to have His Lordship stay further proceedings until the determination of the appeal.
He, however, noted that the judge was bound by his own rulings and, therefore, had the discretion to determine whether to proceed or not, noting that the first authority that the Defendant’s Counsel cited was a 1999 case that predated the EFCC Act 2004.
“This same position was canvassed on behalf of Mustapha (SAN) in a 2016 case, Mustapha v Federal Republic of Nigeria, and the court held that proceedings can only be stayed where there is a court of appeal order to that effect and they relied on 306. In Chukwuma v IGP, a 2018 case, the court held something similar,” he said.
Bello’s counsel in his response said, “We have two notices of appeal – one is on mixed law and fact and the other is on jurisdiction. The authorities he has cited are different from jurisdiction. Chukwuma v IGP is on the admissibility of the document and not jurisdiction.
“In chief Cletus ibeto v Frn, which is an ongoing criminal appeal, all the facts are on all fours with the recent case. The lower court stayed proceedings because of the issue of Jurisdiction and now the argument at the court of appeal is on 306. That is how it is supposed to be.”
Meanwhile, AbdulWahab accused Pinehero of setting them up against the court.
He also decried the treatment meted out to his colleague, Adedipe at the last hearing, saying the Prosecution misled the court.
He added that the EFCC must arrest and bring Bello for arraignment, not theirs.
“You got the warrant and the resources it is your job to bring him not me” AbdulWahab said to Pinehero.
He further said “They attempt to set lawyers against the court. We did not disobey your lordship’s order we appealed to them.
“We urge your lordship in the interest of justice and because the Constitution is supreme to respect the appellate court and stay proceedings”.
The matter was adjourned till September 25 for arraignment.
