Yahaya Bello: EFCC seeks adjournment, court fixes Nov 14, 20 for response to summons

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, on Thursday, sought adjournment of the hearing in its fresh charge against the immediate-past Governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello and two others, to November 14, 2024.

Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, who appeared for the EFCC at the Federal Capital Territory High Court, said at the hearing that at the last adjourned date, the court issued a Public Summons against the 1st defendant directing that same be published and that the charge be pasted.

Justice Maryann Anenih, however, interjected, stating that she did not ask that the charge be passed, only the summons.

Oyedepo said he expected the 1st defendant to be in court on November 14, making reference to the 30-day duration of the summons and therefore sought adjournment till November 14 for the arraignment of the three defendants.

Joseph Daudu, SAN, who appeared for the 2nd defendant, objected to this.

He said the matter was for arraignment and that they were ready, noting that the defendants were all independent and should be so treated.

“You cannot be using somebody as a human shield when they are not in hostage. I don’t like this practice,” he said.

A.M. Aliyu, SAN, who represented the 3rd defendant, aligned with Daudu, SAN, and submitted that, in the alternative, he would be asking the court to take his client’s application for bail.

Listed as 2nd defendant is Umar Oricha while the 3rd defendant is Abdulsalami Hudu.

Oyedepo, however, said that the application for bail could not be taken as the charge was a joint charge.

According to him, there are counts of conspiracy in it.

Insisting that the court should adjourn to November 14, the EFCC lawyer notified the court that there was an application for the enforcement of the fundamental rights of the 2nd defendant and that the oral application could not be taken.

The 2nd defendant’s counsel, Daudu, however, insisted that this negated the principles of fair hearing.

“His argument is persuasive but does not go by what the law says. That is until one individual appears before they can be arraigned. I don’t understand this kind of practice.

“It is an affront to fair hearing because the privilege of fair hearing allows us to raise any issue. Keeping them for 10 years will have no impact.

“They have enjoyed administrative bail before with the EFCC, so it won’t hurt their pride if they give them,” he stated.

The 2nd defendant’s counsel also asked for a date for the fundamental rights application for his client.

Though the judge refused the oral application for bail, she said the defendants should come formally by filling out applications in writing.

She, therefore, adjourned to 14th and 20th November for response of the 1st defendant to summons and/or arraignment.