Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke of the Federal High
Court, sitting in Ikoyi, Lagos, on Thursday, February 13, 2025 adjourned
till March 17, 2025 for ruling on the application filed by Oba
Otudeko, Chairman of Honeywell Group, challenging the jurisdiction of the
court to entertain the multiple fraud charges filed against him
by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commision, EFCC.
Otudeko was to be arraigned alongside a former
Managing Director of First Bank Plc, Olabisi Onasanya; a former board member of
Honeywell, Soji Akintayo and a firm, Anchorage Leisure Limited
on a 13-count charge, bordering on obtaining by false pretence
to the tune of N12.3 billion, which the defendants seek to evade with
preliminary objections, challenging the jurisdiction of the court to try them.
At today's proceeding, prosecuting counsel, Rotimi
Oyedepo, SAN, informed the court that the prosecution had complied with the
court's directive to serve the defence with the charges and proof of evidence.
“The matter was adjourned till today for arraignment,
but before the adjournment on January 20, the court had directed the
prosecution to serve by substituted means the charges and proof of evidence on
the defence and we served accordingly and we have affidavit to prove," he
said.
Otudeko’s counsel, Wole Olanipekun, SAN, however,
notified the court of a fresh application, from his client, challenging the
jurisdiction of the court to hear the case, served on the prosecution on
January 29, 2025 and requested for a hearing date.
Counsel for the third defendant, Kehinde Ogunwumiju,
SAN, similarly, informed the court that on February 10, 2025, he filed an
application challenging the jurisdiction of the court which he said,
has been served on the prosecution. The same application
was also filed by counsel for the fourth defendant, A. Adedeji,
SAN and served on the prosecution.
Confirming the development, prosecution
counsel argued that hearing on the applications cannot go on due to the
absence of Otudeko, the first defendant in court. "Few minutes ago,
we received the first defendant's affidavit for the record confirming that he
travelled out of the country for medical reasons. I also confirm that I was
served with a harvest of motions. I confirm receipt of the motion on notice
from the first, third, and fourth defendants all challenging the court's jurisdiction. They
also asked the court to stay arraignment and also for outright acquittal and
also that the court should not just quash the charge but dispense the
appearance of defendants pending the arraignment of the defendant. For the
absence of the first defendant, we may not be able to take the plea. We want an
undertaking from the first defendant to know when he can come, so that we can
take the arraignment," he said.
Counsel for the third defendant, however, urged
the court to proceed with the hearing of the application arguing that
the absence of the first defendant is immaterial to the hearing of
the application.
“The usual thing is to proceed with the application,
however the prosecution said they cannot proceed because of the absence of the
first defendant. The authorities support that an application can be heard
even in the absence of the defendant. Jurisdiction is very rife and the
law is clear, arraignment before an application will be prejudicial to the
case," he said. His submissions were adopted by counsel for the
fourth defendant.
Prosecution counsel in his response, noted that
the application of the first, third and fourth defendants urging the court to
hear and determine the matter of jurisdiction and sundry prayers
contained were untenable and urged the court to discountenance them.
"It appears to me that we are gradually in this
case repeating the issue that occurred late last year. I refer the court to
the Appeal Court’s decision on the case of Yahaya Bello, appeal no
CA/ABJ/CR/534, the provision of 396(2) of ACJA 2015 reproduced above is very
clear to the effect that any preliminary objection to the validity of the
charge can only be heard after the plea has been taken. Asking the court
to hear and determine a preliminary objection while the first defendant is in
the UK with nothing to say than that he is on admission is injustice.
It is unfair to him for us to be shaving his hair while he is in a mansion in
the UK. I urge your lordship to bind yourself with the decision of Court
of Appeal that I just cited," he said.
Oyedepo further argued that: “The approach by the
defence is taking is taking us back to Egypt where we have left. The
application is incurably defective. It is dead on arrival. I should not dignify
an illegality. The law says you can’t raise it. I urge the court to adjourn for
arraignment and then after the plea of the defendant, objections can be
raised. Except there is amendment to Section 396 of ACJA, I urge your
lordship not to accede to the request of the defence. Don’t give judicial
blessings to the implied conduct of the defendant to the effect that I stay in
the house and my lawyer will deal with it. Ask him to come.
“No private citizen whether corporate or entity has
the requisite power to condone criminal allegations or compound an offence. It
cannot be said that there is no prima facie case. The
provision of 396(2) divests my lord of the requisite power to hear an
application challenging the jurisdiction of the court or charge before the plea
is taken. Those prayers cannot be entertained because the law says so."
He specifically requested that the defendant be
present in court at the next sitting.
After listening to the arguments, Justice Aneke
adjourned till March 17, 2025, for ruling on the applications.
Comments:
Leave a Reply