The
Supreme Court on Friday ordered the retrial of a former Senate President, Adolphus
Wabara, and others over an alleged N55m bribe-for-budget deal.
Supreme Court on Friday ordered the retrial of a former Senate President, Adolphus
Wabara, and others over an alleged N55m bribe-for-budget deal.
The case was brought against Wabara and the other accused
persons by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences
Commission in 2005.
persons by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences
Commission in 2005.
The other accused persons are a former Minister of Education,
Prof. Fabian Osuji; Senator Ibrahim AbdulAzeez, Senator Azuta Mbata and Garba
Matazu.
Prof. Fabian Osuji; Senator Ibrahim AbdulAzeez, Senator Azuta Mbata and Garba
Matazu.
Two other accused persons – Senators Emmanuel Okpede and
Badamosi Maccido – have died since the case commenced, and their names have
been struck out.
Badamosi Maccido – have died since the case commenced, and their names have
been struck out.
The Supreme Court ordered the retrial in its judgment in an
appeal brought by the ICPC against a decision of the Court of Appeal on June 1,
2010.
appeal brought by the ICPC against a decision of the Court of Appeal on June 1,
2010.
The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, had on June 1, 2010,
dismissed the 15 counts against the accused persons.
dismissed the 15 counts against the accused persons.
Dissatisfied, the ICPC appealed at the Supreme Court.
In its judgment in the appeal on Friday, the panel of justices
of the Supreme Court agreed with the ICPC that the Court of Appeal erred in
dismissing the charges.
of the Supreme Court agreed with the ICPC that the Court of Appeal erred in
dismissing the charges.
The Supreme Court therefore remitted the suit to the trial court
for retrial.
for retrial.
Delivering the apex court’s verdict, Justice Sylvester Ngwuta
said, “I hereby set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remit the
case to the trial court for retrial.”
said, “I hereby set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remit the
case to the trial court for retrial.”
The Supreme Court also ordered accelerated retrial of the case.
The suspects were on April 11, 2005, arraigned before Justice
Hussein Mukhtar of the FCT High Court for allegedly demanding, and obtaining
monetary gratification to facilitate easy passage of the budget of the Federal
Ministry of Education in 2005.
Hussein Mukhtar of the FCT High Court for allegedly demanding, and obtaining
monetary gratification to facilitate easy passage of the budget of the Federal
Ministry of Education in 2005.
The alleged offence was contrary to sections 9 (1) (a); 17(a);
23 (2); and 26 (1) of the ICPC Act, 2010, and punishable under sections 8
(1); 9 (1) (b); 17 (c); and 23 (3) of the same Act.
23 (2); and 26 (1) of the ICPC Act, 2010, and punishable under sections 8
(1); 9 (1) (b); 17 (c); and 23 (3) of the same Act.
The accused persons had earlier applied to the FCT High Court to
quash the charges against them, but Justice Muktar dismissed their application
in a judgment delivered on November 10, 2005.
quash the charges against them, but Justice Muktar dismissed their application
in a judgment delivered on November 10, 2005.
Thereafter, three of the suspects – Wabara, AbdulAzeez and Osuji
– approached the Court of Appeal in Abuja to challenge the judgment of the FCT
High Court.
– approached the Court of Appeal in Abuja to challenge the judgment of the FCT
High Court.
Consequently, in a judgment on June 1, 2010, the Court of Appeal
set the three accused persons free and
quashed the charges brought against them by the ICPC.
set the three accused persons free and
quashed the charges brought against them by the ICPC.
In the judgment delivered by Justice Mary Peter Odili, the Court
of Appeal held that the charges were bogus and failed to disclose a prima facie case against the accused persons.
of Appeal held that the charges were bogus and failed to disclose a prima facie case against the accused persons.
Justice Odili also ruled that the charges were frivolous,
baseless and lacking in merit and as such cannot be sustained by any
prosecution.
baseless and lacking in merit and as such cannot be sustained by any
prosecution.
The ICPC headed for the Supreme Court to appeal the verdict, a development
which resulted in Friday’s order for retrial.
which resulted in Friday’s order for retrial.
When the matter came up for hearing at the Supreme Court, the
ICPC had insisted that the accused persons must face trial.
ICPC had insisted that the accused persons must face trial.
ICPC counsel, Chief Niyi Oshe, SAN, and Mr. John Bayeshea, SAN,
had argued that, “It is ridiculous to say noprima facie case was made against the accused
because the statement of Prof. Osuji was enough to establish that they have a
case to answer.
had argued that, “It is ridiculous to say noprima facie case was made against the accused
because the statement of Prof. Osuji was enough to establish that they have a
case to answer.
“Prima facie case
cannot be equated with proving a case beyond reasonable doubt.
cannot be equated with proving a case beyond reasonable doubt.
“At this stage of arraignment, it is too early to assume that
there is no case against them.
there is no case against them.
“The Court of Appeal went to the extent of treating Sen. Chris
Adighije as a tainted witness. But our position is that the court cannot treat
anyone as a tainted witness until trial takes place.
Adighije as a tainted witness. But our position is that the court cannot treat
anyone as a tainted witness until trial takes place.
“Accused persons should not be discharged on the basis of
preferment of charges.
preferment of charges.
“If the position of the Court of Appeal is sustained to the
effect that there was no prima facie case against the accused, a c ombination
of these errors will make criminal prosecution almost impossible in this court.
effect that there was no prima facie case against the accused, a c ombination
of these errors will make criminal prosecution almost impossible in this court.
“The court should let the accused face trial, it should not
discharge them on mere preferment of charges.”
discharge them on mere preferment of charges.”
On the other hand, the defence counsel, including Osuji’s
lawyer, Mr. Goddy Uche, had insisted that there was no prima facie evidence against the accused
persons.
lawyer, Mr. Goddy Uche, had insisted that there was no prima facie evidence against the accused
persons.
Source: Punch
