Former Kogi governor Yahaya Bello has petitioned the Federal High Court in Abuja to indefinitely adjourn the ongoing case brought against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
He also requested that the court revoke its arrest order against him, pending the outcome of an appeal he filed at the Court of Appeal in Abuja.
Bello’s requests are outlined in a letter from his counsel, Musa Yakubu, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN).
The letter, dated July 12, was addressed to Justice Emeka Nwite, the trial judge, ahead of Bello’s scheduled arraignment on Wednesday, July 17.
Bello faces charges of allegedly laundering N80 billion.
In his appeal against the trial, Bello expressed concerns about his fate if the case proceeds.
In the appellate case (file no. CA/ABJ/CR/535/2024), Bello is seeking to have the arrest warrant issued against him on April 17, 2024, set aside.
He also wants the case file returned to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court for reassignment to another judge.
The appeal challenges the decisions of the Federal High Court in Abuja in Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/98/2024.
Bello is also seeking an order from the Appeal Court to set aside the service of the EFCC charge on him by substituted means, as well as the entire proceedings conducted in the case so far.
In his letter, Bello requested that further proceedings in the charge be adjourned sine die, pending the determination of the appeal currently pending at the Court of Appeal, Abuja.
A copy of the letter was also sent to the National Judicial Council (NJC) and the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court. This letter responded to an EFCC letter to Justice Nwite, dated July 8, 2024, and filed on July 10, 2024.
In its letter, the EFCC requested a variation of the earlier arrest warrant against Bello, specifically directing various security agencies to carry out the arrest.
In response, Bello’s counsel urged the court to decline the EFCC’s request and await the outcome of the appeal regarding the arrest warrant and other related decisions of the trial court.
Bello’s counsel cited the law as contained in Order 4 Rule 11(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021, and the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Vab Petroleum INC v. Momah, among other cases.
“We respectfully urge the Court to set aside and expunge from its records the proceedings of June 27, 2024, including any ruling, order, or directive carried out in the face of the defendant’s appeal entered on May 24, 2024,” he said.
He requested the court to “adjourn further proceedings in this charge sine die, pending the determination of Appeal No: CA/ABJ/CR/536/2024 entered by the defendant, and pending at the Court of Appeal, Abuja.”
The letter read in part: “The defendant to the charge had, on May 17, 2024, filed a notice of appeal against the ruling of this Court made on May 10, 2024, refusing to discharge the warrant of arrest issued against the defendant.
“The defendant, pursuant to the said notice of appeal, compiled and transmitted the record of appeal to the Court of Appeal and entered on May 24, 2024, Appeal No: CA/ABJ/CR/536/2024.
“Notwithstanding the foregoing, the complainant has now filed the above-referenced application seeking an amendment of the warrant of arrest, initially directed only to the complainant, to include heads of other security and law enforcement agencies listed in the prosecuting counsel’s letter.
“The court cannot consider the application or do anything with respect to the aforesaid warrant of arrest or conduct further proceedings in this charge, in view of the provisions of Order 4 Rule 11(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021, which states: ‘After an appeal has been entered and until it has been finally disposed of, the Court shall be seized of the whole of the proceedings as between the parties thereto.
“Except as may be otherwise provided in these rules, every application therein shall be made to the court and not to the lower court.
“The warrant of arrest upon which the complainant’s application is based is the subject of an appeal in Appeal No: CA/ABJ/CR/536/2024, and by the above provision of the Court of Appeal Rules, this Court no longer has jurisdiction to entertain any application or take any action regarding the warrant of arrest issued on April 17, 2024, as the Court of Appeal now holds jurisdiction over the matter.
“By virtue of the appeal entered by the defendant, the warrant of arrest, which is the subject of the complainant’s application, is now in total abeyance pending the determination of the defendant’s appeal.
“To take any contrary action to the provisions of Order 4 Rule 11(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021, would be tantamount to undermining the constitutionally guaranteed appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal under Section 240 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and against the grain of the settled position of the law established by the Supreme Court of Nigeria.
“The apex court states that when an appeal has been entered, the lower court no longer has jurisdiction to do anything in the matter and must abide by the decision of the appellate court, as any step taken by the trial court in the face of such an appeal is a nullity.”
The letter drew Justice Nwite’s attention to a similar case, also a criminal appeal, in which Justice Ismail Ijelu of the High Court of Lagos State stayed further proceedings after the appellant entered an appeal in Appeal No: CAIL/1159/2023 between Chief Cletus Ibeto v. Federal Republic of Nigeria.
The appellant was challenging the warrant of arrest issued against him in light of his preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the lower court to entertain the charge filed by the complainant against him.
“The complainant’s application to you, therefore, ought not to have been filed at all or, if necessary, should be brought before the Court of Appeal, Abuja, which now holds jurisdiction over the matter.
“The complainant’s counsel, as a senior member of the Bar, is under a duty to have brought the appeal entered by the defendant to the attention of this Court even during the proceedings of June 27, 2024.
“We, therefore, respectfully urge your Lordship not to be misled or hoodwinked by the complainant into a head-on collision with the Court of Appeal, but rather to follow the well-established course of action stated above.
“To do otherwise would be an affront to the hallowed principle of judicial hierarchy, which is the very foundation of our legal system,” the letter read further. (NAN)
