The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has asked a federal high court in Abuja to commence the trial of Yahaya Bello, former Kogi state governor, in his absence.
After filing a 19-count charge, the EFCC has been seeking to arraign Bello since April, over allegations bordering on money laundering to the tune of N80 billion.
On Wednesday, Kemi Pinheiro, counsel to EFCC, told the court he had two witnesses present and was ready to proceed with trial.
He said Bello’s refusal to come to court physically for his arraignment was “malicious”.
He asked the court to enter a plea of not guilty in the absence of the defendant.
“A court can never demonstrate helplessness. That would be an indication of anarchy and society is based on the rule of law. The court demonstrating helplessness will negate the basis of the rule of law,” Pinheiro said.
“A criminal trial must not be held hostage, truncated or frustrated by a defendant’s refusal to engage the process. Justice is a three-way street—justice to the defendant, justice to the prosecution who has assembled witnesses and justice to the society.
“My lord must give preference to public interest.”
The senior lawyer added that the preliminary objection and representation by different counsel prove that Bello is aware of the charge against him.
“Where a defendant acts maliciously by refusing to come and enter his plea to answer to the charge, my lord is mandated by sec 256(1) to formally enter a plea of not guilty and proceed with trial,” he said.
“The deliberate flouting of the court of appeal order to present himself for arraignment is a call to plea.
“Consequently, the non-attendance of the defendant is tantamount to a deliberate refusal to plea.
“The constitutional right to be physically present to plead guilty or not guilty is a right that can be waved by that defendant.
“My lord is invited to hold that the defendant has waived that right.”
Responding, A.M Adoyi, Bello’s lawyer, asked the court to discountenance the submissions of the senior counsel.
“Our first point of response to the application made by the learned senior counsel to the complainant is that the application is made contrary to the subsisting order of this honourable court, even made this morning, that no application can be entertained by this court in the absence of the arraignment of the defendant,” he said.
“If helplessness is existent in this proceedings, it is on the side of the prosecution and not the court.
“The section of ACJA applicable in this circumstance is the provision of sec 352(1)(2).
“Civil proceedings are distinct from criminal proceedings. Whereas the former does not require the presence of a party, the latter mandates the physical presence of the defendant before the commencement of trial.
“The prosecution’s applications cannot be anchored on any of the provisions of ACJA they seek to rely on.”
After listening to all lawyers, Emeka Nwite, presiding judge, adjourned to January 21, 2025.
