Justice Babatunde O. Quadri of the Federal High Court,
Maitama, Abuja has adjourned to July 7, 2017 for ruling on a motion by the
embattled former governor of Jigawa State, Alhaji Sule Lamido praying the court
to return his case file to former trial judge, Justice Adeniyi Ademola.
Lamido, who is currently facing an amended 48-count charge
of money laundering alongside his sons, Aminu Sule Lamido, Mustapha Sule
Lamido; Aminu Wada Abubakar, Bamaina Holdings Ltd and Speeds International
Limited, allegedly abused his position as governor between 2007 and 2015 by
awarding contracts to companies where he had interest, using his two sons as
fronts
In the course of his trial, Lamido had through his counsel,
Offiong Offiong, SAN told the court that the Chief Judge of the Federal High
Court, in transferring the criminal matter from Justice Adeniyi Ademola to
Justice Quadri, had exceeded his powers.
According to Offiong, “The main challenge is not whether the
CJ has powers to transfer cases. Rather, it is whether or not the CJ kept
within the statutory boundary set out in Section 98 of the Administration of
Criminal Justice, ACJA, 2015, before he exercised that power. There are
conditions that are to be met before the CJ can transfer a criminal matter from
one court to another.”
According to him, “the CJ did not keep within the bounds of that power; rather, he exceeded his powers and as such acted ultra varis.
According to him, “the CJ did not keep within the bounds of that power; rather, he exceeded his powers and as such acted ultra varis.
He added that, “the law prohibits the CJ from
exercising the power of transfer where witnesses have been called.”
Regarding the counter affidavit served by the prosecution,
Offiong, opined that the prosecution did not follow proper procedure in
complaining against the former trial judge, stating that, “If the prosecution
is alleging bias against the former trial judge, the appropriate remedy would
be to send a petition to the CJ, who in turn will constitute an independent
body of not more than three reputable practitioners to look into it and give a
report. In this case, the CJ’s power to transfer is subject to the outcome of
that report.”
He urged the court to uphold his motion, stressing that the
defendants have rights of freedom of representation, as well as a right to
speedy trial, and that there should be no conflict between both rights.
Responding, prosecuting counsel, Chile Okoroma, insisted
that the defence sought to “make the matter lie in limbo without progress while
hiding behind the smokescreen of appearing to want a speedy trial”.
According to him, the defence was seeking a return of the case file to the former trial judge, Justice Ademola, as well as an order for accelerated hearing.
According to him, the defence was seeking a return of the case file to the former trial judge, Justice Ademola, as well as an order for accelerated hearing.
“My Lord, this court does not have the power and cannot
grant the defendants the relief they seek. Only the CJ can do that”, Okoroma
said.
Citing relevant authorities to establish precedence, Okoroma
went on: “The defence relied heavily on Section 98 of the ACJA, 2015. However,
provisions therein can only come into play in a proceeding where judge is
sitting without intervening factors, and there are no issues as to likelihood
of bias and the judge is not on suspension.
“In paragraphs 10 and 13 of our counter affidavit, facts
presented are not controversial. It is important that the court takes judicious
note of the fact that the former trial judge is still on suspension and his
court under lock and key. As it stands now, the National Judicial Council, NJC,
has not lifted his suspension, and the Honourable Justice is not sitting.
Furthermore, there is no date available as to when he will resume.
“The independence and impartiality of the trial judge which
is also emphasized in the constitution was also stressed by the defence
counsel. The former trial judge and the defence’s lead counsel were tried
together for corruption related cases. Though discharged and acquitted, issues
have been raised of real likelihood of bias based on relationship between the
judge and the counsel.
“Section 98 of the ACJA, 2015 is not sacrosanct in this
regard. If the trial judge had resigned voluntarily or even died and witnesses
had been called, the CJ cannot be barred from exercising his powers to reassign
the matter”.
“The CJ exercised his powers during a period of suspension
of the former trial judge and did not act ultra varis.”
“We oppose the defendant’s motion and urge your lordship to
discountenance the defence’s application”, Okoroma submitted.
Justice Quadri, thereafter, adjourned for ruling on the motion.
0 Comments