The Federal High Court sitting in Kaduna on Monday denied two applications by former Governor of Delta State, James Ibori, for lack of concrete evidence, while the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) amended the charges against him to 170.
Judge Mohammed Lawal Shuaibu adjourned the case to April 1, 2008 for trial, after ruling that he has no reason to hands off the case for transfer to another Judge, as requested by Ibori.
Charged along with Ibori are Uduamaka Okoronkwo and Chinedu Ebie, a legal practitioner, who was arraigned for the first time. They all pleaded not guilty.
Ibori, facing trial for alleged money laundering, had applied for transfer of the case to the Chief Judge (CJ) of the Federal High Court in Lagos for re-assignment to another Judge, preferably in the Benin Division, which has several Judges, unlike Kaduna which has just one.
He argued in an affidavit that he ought to have been tried at the Benin Judicial Division where the offences were allegedly committed, rather than hundreds of kilometres in Kaduna.
Ibori�s lead counsel, Joseph Daudu, also argued that continuing the trial in Kaduna violates his client�s right to fair hearing, because over 200 witnesses who are mostly civil servants are based in Delta State.
He asked Shuaibu, �to excuse himself from further participation in the trial on the ground� of likelihood of bias.
But Shuaibu ruled on Monday that the applicants have an onerous burden
of providing clear and solid evidence to warrant such a transfer.
�In the instant case,��_ Shuaibu held, ���the learned senior counsel for the accused has relied on the provision of Section 19 Subsection (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act in submitting that the charge shall not be filed directly here. And it is the prerogative of the Chief Judge (CJ) to assign the case to this court.
���The learned prosecuting counsel on his part laid his reliance on Sections 17 and 71 of the Criminal Procedure Act to content that the court is directly having jurisdiction. In other words, the charge can be filed directly without the CJ assigning it to this court.
�I consider both Sections 70 and 71 of the Criminal Procedure Act alongside Section 19 Subsection (3) of the Federal High Court Act. However none of those provisions deals with the issue.
�For instance, Sections 70 and 71 of the Criminal Procedure Act contested a situation where a Judge may assume jurisdiction under certain conditions. And where a cause is already commenced, the conditions and circumstances contemplated in Sections 70 and 71 of the Criminal Procedure Act do not arise in this case.
�The situation is not different from Section 19 Subsection (3) of the Federal High Court Act.
�As the submission of the learned senior counsel for the accused applicants represents the correct legal position, all causes, civil and criminal, must be filed in Lagos for the CJ to distribute to the Judges in all divisions.
�The provision of Subsection (3) shall not be read in isolation, and a continuing reading of the entire Section 19 of the Federal High Court Act reveal that the distribution stated therein is purely an administrative matter that cannot also direct the court of its jurisdiction as provided for in Sections 249, 252 of the Constitution as well as Section 19 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
�Thus, it is my view that a charge or complaint can validly be filed directly in this court and assume jurisdiction so long as such a matter is within the jurisdiction of the court.
�As I have said elsewhere in this ruling, such a matter is within the exclusive jurisdiction of this court.
�Having arrived at the conclusion that the venue of the trial in this case is proper venue and that the charge was validly filed, the accused applicants� prayer number one has failed.
�And considering the fact that the allegation of bias is not on the basis of the peculiar business of the presiding Judge, M.L. Shuaibu, the accused applicants have an onerous burden of providing clear, direct,
positive, unequivocal, and solid evidence which they also failed to provide in this case.
�On the face of the foregoing, and considering the absence of any justifiable reason or reasons why the presiding Judge in this matter ��_ should rescue himself from further participating in the trial of this case, the application is hereby dismissed.�
Austin Alege, who reacted on behalf of Daudu, wondered why EFCC counsel, Rotimi Jacobs, insisted on the charges being read after the ruling.
He said the actual business for the day was the ruling, hence the absence of Daudu in court.
Alege told journalists that the �trial is not all about happiness, is about the law; we have not read about the ruling. We will appeal.�
Mar112008