The Federal Government has filed a 20-count charge of alleged sundry offences against the suspended Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) governor,Godwin Emefiele at the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court, Abuja.
The government stated this on Tuesday after applying to the Federal High Court in Lagos to withdraw the “illegal possession of firearms” case it filed against Emefiele.
A director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) at the federal ministry of Justice, Mohammed Abubakar told Justice Nicholas Oweibo in Lagos that the application to withdraw followed the outcome of a continued probe of the embattled banker.
But Emefiele’s lawyer, Joseph Daudu (SAN) opposed him, arguing that the government was in disobedience of the court’s July 25 order granting the defendant bail, thus its application could not be taken.
Justice Oweibo adjourned till Thursday for the ruling.
Emefiele has been in the custody of the Department of State Security since June 10 following his suspension by President Bola Tinubu.
Following his arraignment on July 25 on a two-count charge of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition, Justice Oweibo granted him N20 million bail and ordered his remand at the Ikoyi Correctional Centre, pending the fulfilment of his bail conditions.
But the DSS rearrested the bank chief after fighting off NCoS officials on the court’s premises.
Following proceedings on August 10, the court fixed yesterday to hear two pending applications filed by either party.
The first application – filed by the Ministry of Justice on August 3 – sought leave to appeal against the N20m bail.
The second – filed by Emefiele on August 8 – is asking the court to stop the Federal Government from further prosecuting him on the charge of illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition or any other charge.
When the matter came up on Tuesday, the DPP made an oral application to the court seeking to withdraw the charges against Emefiele.
He stated that the application was informed by emerging facts and for circumstances that need further investigation.
Abubakar said: “We have an oral application made pursuant to section 174(1c and 2) of the 1999 Constitution and section 108(2) of Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJA) 2015 seeking to withdraw the charge against Emefiele.
“Our application is sequel to the fact and circumstances of this case as a result of further investigation.”
But Daudu disagreed with the prosecution’s oral application, arguing that the government’s disobedience of the court’s order granting Emefiele bail means its application could not be taken.
He said while he did not dispute the state’s power to withdraw any charge before the court against any person, an application for withdrawal could not be made orally, thus “there is no application before the court.”
He added: “We have an application that the AGF has flouted the court order which says the respondent/ defendant should be remanded at the Nigeria Correctional Service (NCoS), but they are not obeying the order.
“The court granted the order of substituted service to be published in three national dailies. After they brought an application for a stay of execution of the bail, and we say unless they obey that order, Section 174 (1) of the Constitution can only be by Nolle Prosequi.
“It must be in writing, I have never heard of the withdrawal of a case without a Nolle Prosequi for the interest of justice we need to prevent abuse of legal processes.
“Every application they brought against any citizen of this country under section 174, is nolle prosequi the government cannot come before the court orally for that, it’s to be by “nolle prosequi”, at the point in term there is no application before the court.
“I urge the court to reject the application and order the learned DPP to go on with today’s business.”
But the DPP countered that a Nolle Prosequi was different from a withdrawal, backing up his argument with Section 108 of the ACJA, 2015.
The judge declined to settle the arguments immediately.
“I can’t write a bench ruling now, so, I will adjourn till Thursday, 18th of August for ruling in order to arrive at an informed conclusion,” Justice Oweibo held
Speaking with journalists after the day’s proceedings Abubakar said the fresh charges – with 20 counts – were filed at the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court, adding that they bother on unlawful procurement under the ICPC Act, and taking unlawful advantage.
Explaining the application to withdraw, the DPP said: “We are withdrawing the charge because of emerging facts pending further investigations at the end of which we will probably come back with more charges and more counts.
“If you listen to our submissions in court, we distinguished Sections 107 from 108. While Section 107 provides that the application for withdrawal shall be in writing. Section 108 is silent on the mode, it gives the prosecutor the authority to apply to the judge, and our application was made pursuant to Section 108. “
On whether Emefiele is being denied access to his lawyers and relatives, he said “It is not true, he has unhindered access to his lawyers and relatives and his friends at all times.”
According to him, the DSS had not disobeyed the court order on bail.
He said: “When the court rendered its ruling granting the defendant bail, it was on two legs.
“He was granted bail and to be remanded in the custody of the Correctional Service pending the fulfilment of bail conditions.
“You will agree with me that there are administrative processes and protocols for handing over a detainee from one agency to another and that is what the State Services had to do, and that was what occasioned the delay in transferring him.
“On the basis of that is the fact that he is also being investigated for other offences, and there is also another pending charge at the FCT High Court as we speak.
“So all these combined slow down the process of complying with the order of the court. The new charge may contain unlawful possession of firearms among others.”
On the charge at the FCT, Abubakar said: “We have filed a 20-count charge against the defendant, which bothers on unlawful procurement under the ICPC Act, and taking unlawful advantage.”
Responding in a separate interview, the defence said it had no knowledge of any new charge.
Daudu said, “What we have not seen and what has not been served on us, to us is fiction. When we see it, we will deal with it.
“What is on the ground is disrespect to the court. That disgraceful incident that all of you witnessed should not be left unattended and the court fixed today (yesterday) to hear the issues.
“That disrespect to the court must be washed away and cannot be wished away before any step can be taken including withdrawal of the charge. There is a greater issue: are the courts to be used like tissue paper, blow your nose in it and throw it away?
“The courts are more than that. We came prepared but they ambushed us with an oral application for withdrawal. There is no difference between withdrawal and nolle prosequi. The constitution says that before you withdraw, you must be seen to be acting in the public interest, in the interest of Justice and must not be an abuse of the court process.”
