Skip to main content

Fani-Kayode Wants Judge Handling Money Laundering Case To Step Aside, Transfer Case To Abuja

January 17, 2017

Former Aviation Minister Femi Fani-Kayode caused a mild legal controversy today as his money laundering trial resumed today at the Lagos Division of the Federal High Court. Mr. Fani-Kayode, who is accused by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) of laundering N4.6 billion, argued that his case should be heard in Abuja rather than Lagos. 

In addition, Mr. Fani-Kayode urged Justice Muslim Hassan, who is presiding over his case, to recuse himself from the case, pointing out that the judge, as an EFCC legal officer, had in 2008 signed a criminal charge filed against him.

In two separate applications, the other accused persons demanded a separate trial and the transfer of their case to Abuja. 

On June 28, 2016, the EFCC arraigned Mr. Fani-Kayode and three others on a 17-count charge of money laundering. The other accused persons are former Minister of State for Finance, Esther Nenadi Usman, Danjuma Yusuf, and a limited liability company, John Trust Dimensions Nigeria Limited.

In an application, Mr. Fani-Kayode’s lawyer, Norrison Quakers, questioned why his client was being tried in Lagos when the transactions leading to the alleged offences occurred in Abuja while the ex-Aviation minister served as the director of media and publicity for the Goodluck Jonathan Presidential Campaign Organization. 

Mr. Quakers stated that his client’s proposed witnesses, the majority of prosecution witnesses and the financial institutions involved in the case not only reside in Abuja but also conducted their businesses there. The lawyer added that the EFCC had frozen the bank accounts belonging to Mr. Fani-Kayode and his wife, noting that his client found it increasingly difficult to finance his transportation, welfare, hotel accommodation and other expenses during his trial in Lagos. 

Mr. Fani-Kayode also challenged the propriety of Justice Hassan’s continued hearing of the case as the judge worked with the EFCC as a senior legal officer and a prosecuting counsel who drafted, prepared, settled, executed and subsequently filed towards his prosecution in 2008 before he was discharged on July 1, 2015.

The former minister’s lawyer appealed to the judge to recuse himself and transfer the case to the Abuja Division of the court. The other defendants also sought the transfer of the case to Abuja. 

In another application, the other defendants asked the court to separate their trial from that of the former Aviation minister.

Mr. Quakers and another lawyer, Abiodun Owonikoko, led nine other defense lawyers. They refused to cross-examine the first prosecution witness, Idowu Olusegun, a media consultant. 

Justice Hassan had directed Ms. Nenadi Usman's lawyer, Mr. Owonikoko, to cross-examine the witness following the conclusion of the examination-in-chief by the EFCC's lawyer, Rotimi Oyedepo. In rejecting the invitation, Mr. Owonikoko said he was handicapped by his client's application pending before the court. He added that going ahead with the cross-examination would mean he had abandoned his application. 

“Your Lordship, having graciously acknowledged that application, it would amount to an anticipatory refusal thereof for the first defendant to continue with a joint trial with the second defendant and proceed to cross-examine the witness,” said Mr. Owonikoko.

He added, “Continuing with the trial would also amount to a refusal of the second leg of the application which is challenging the choice of Lagos as trial venue. 

“The concern is about the joint trial of the first defendant with the second defendant by the prosecution and also with the choice of Lagos as venue for trial in a matter that happened at Abuja and Kaduna.” 

Mr. Owonikoko urged the court to refer the matter to the Court of Appeal for determination of the appropriateness of continuing with the trial in the face of pending applications. Other defense lawyers aligned themselves with Mr. Owonikoko's submissions. 

EFCC counsel, Mr. Oyedepo, faulted the defense lawyers' refusal to cross-examine the witness. He argued that certain sections of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) gave the court some discretion as to when the applications were to be heard. 

He also argued that the defendants should no longer be concerned about the issue of jurisdiction, noting that they had already submitted themselves to the court's jurisdiction by entering their respective pleas to the charge. 

Justice Hassan adjourned till tomorrow to determine whether the trial should continue.

Image

 ᐧ

 

Topics
Corruption