Punch Newspaper. Saturday December 20.
The Court of Appeal sitting in Kaduna on Friday ruled that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission had no powers to prosecute the former governor of Delta State, Chief James Ibori, at the Federal High Court, Kaduna.

The Appeal Court also said that the EFCC could not try an accused person outside the jurisdiction where alleged offences were committed, stressing that such an action was tantamount to persecution rather than the prosecution of an accused person. Delivering a unanimous judgment in an appeal brought by Ibori against his trial at the Federal High Court, Kaduna, located about 700 kilometers away from Delta State where the alleged offences were committed, the appellate court said the EFCC erred by prosecuting the former governor in Kaduna instead of a court of proximate jurisdiction.

Justice Amina Adamu-Augie of the appeal court therefore ruled that Ibori‘s matter should be sent back to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court for reassignment to a court of competent jurisdiction. Ibori’s lead counsel, Mr Joseph Daudu, SAN, had appealed against the trial of his client before Justice Mohammed Lawal Shuaibu of the Federal High Court, Kaduna.

Daudu had argued that the case be transferred to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court for reassignment to a court of competent jurisdiction as the trial of Ibori in Kaduna amounted to “forum shopping.” Ibori’s lawyer had further argued that the trial of the former Delta governor in Kaduna amounted to persecution. He had argued that it was not convenient for the former governor to transport over 200 witnesses and tonnes of classified documents belonging to Delta State to the Federal High Court, Kaduna.

But counsel to the EFCC, Mr. Rotimi Jacobs had opposed Daudu, arguing that the Federal High Court had jurisdiction to try any case committed against the Federal Government in any part of the country. Arguing further, Jacobs cited the trial of the late Chief Moshood Abiola for treason in Abuja instead of Lagos where he allegedly committed the offence as a precedent.

But having reviewed the submissions of both the prosecution and defence counsel, the justice dismissed the EFCC’s position. She said that Abiola was tried for treason, which was a crime against the nation, while Ibori’s case was a criminal matter, which should be tried at the nearest Federal High Court.

She wondered why the EFCC should investigate, prosecute and at the same time search for a judge of its choice. The appeal court said there would not have been any need to set up judicial divisions if accused persons could be taken to any judge of the Federal High Court for trial. She wondered why the EFCC bypassed the Benin and Abuja judicial divisions of the court and took the matter to Kaduna.

On allegations of the likelihood of bias, which the lower court dismissed as a non-issue, the appeal court said the judge of the lower court missed the point. She said that favouritism did not imply only bribery or that someone had compromised himself. She further faulted the lower court for giving Ibori only two weeks to prepare his case and appear in court after he had spent about two months in detention, without taking into consideration the distance between Delta and Kaduna states.

In his verdict, Justice Moshood Abdulrahman Oredola supported Adamu-Augie, saying that there was no reason why an accused person should be tried hundreds of kilometres outside the court’s jurisdiction. He said, “The fact that there is only one Federal High Court does not mean that you can uproot an accused person from any where and plant him wherever you want. You cannot take an accused person from Lagos to Gashua (Yobe State) for trial. It is not fair for EFCC to pick, choose and determine which court should try its matter. An accused person should be tried in a place close to his house. Prosecution can not be turned to persecution or denial of fundamental rights. The ruling of the lower court of March 3, 2008 is hereby set aside.”

Although Justice Abdulkadir Jega was absent from court during the judgment, Adamu-Augie said he was in support.

[

Muza and crea8tivity, you can now see how strongly corruption is fighting back. Crea8tivity, you have been very unfair to Mallam Ribadu who tried his very best to confront this cancer in our society. You kept accusing him of not following the rule of law.
Do you prefer the current outcome, where moneybags have infiltrated and corrupted our judiciary. You must really be naive to think you can successfully prosecute a war on corruption through the courts.
Goodbye to good governance in Nigeria. You and I including our children will continue to live in the 4th world.

FG won’t abandon Ibori’s trial – AGF

Despite the reprieve that came the way of the former governor of Delta State, Chief James Ibori, from London on Thursday, the Attorney-General of Federation and Minister of Justice, Chief Michael Aondoakaa, SAN, has said that his trial will continue in Nigeria

He said that the dismissal of the Metropolitan Police evidence against Ibori by the Court of Appeal in London was to protect the sovereignty of Nigeria. The AGF, who spoke with newsmen in his office on Friday, said the Federal Government had no intention of protecting any corrupt person.

He said the Met Police evidence and the trial were an abuse of Nigeria’s bilateral agreement with the United Kingdom, adding that his office would still ask for the evidence with a view to studying it.

He did not say if his office would give the needed approval for the evidence to be returned to London so as to retry the former governor. He said that the agreement with the UK was to forestall a situation whereby evidence would be collected from a person under duress, noting that it was wrong to try an accused person twice in different places.

He said, “We have no intention to protect any corrupt person in the country. The case against James Ibori will run its natural course in the court. We protested against what the Met Police did not because it was Ibori but it was against the sovereignty of the country. We have to look at the treaty, which says that such evidence must have the permission of the government; as not doing that could lead to anarchy. Several people could just come here and take evidence and use it to prosecute people anyhow.

“In that case, the sovereignty of Nigeria is at stake and I am happy the judges in London agreed that you don’t just enter into another country and bring evidence against an accused person without the authority of the government in that country.”