EFCC seeks adjournment in fresh case against Yahaya Bello to November 14

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has requested a postponement of the hearing in the new charges brought against the former Governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello, and two other defendants.

The case, which was set for a hearing at the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court on Thursday, was adjourned to November 14, 2024.

Rotimi Oyedepo, Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), representing the EFCC, stated that during the previous court session, a Public Summons was issued against the first defendant, Yahaya Bello, and that the charge was to be publicized and summons pasted.

However, Justice Maryann E. Anenih clarified that only the summons was to be pasted, not the charge.

Oyedepo expressed the expectation that Bello would be present in court by November 14, referencing the 30-day timeline specified in the summons.

READ ALSO :JUST IN : Fresh trouble for Yahaya Bello as court summons him over alleged breach of trust, others

Consequently, he requested an adjournment until that date for the arraignment of all three defendants.

However, JB Daudu, SAN, representing the second defendant, opposed the adjournment request.

He emphasized that the defendants were ready for arraignment and that they should be treated as independent individuals in the proceedings.

“You cannot be using somebody as a human shield when they are not in hostage. I don’t like this practice,” he said.

A.M. Aliyu, SAN, who represented the 3rd defendant, aligned with Daudu, SAN, and submitted that, in the alternative, he would be asking the court to take his client’s application for bail.

Oyedepo, however, said that the application for bail could not be taken as the charge was a joint charge.

According to him, there are counts of conspiracy in it.

Insisting that the court should adjourn to November 14, the EFCC lawyer notified the court that there was an application for the enforcement of fundamental rights of the 2nd defendant and that the oral application cannot be taken.

The 2nd defendant’s counsel, Daudu, however, insisted that this negated the principles of fair hearing.

“His argument is persuasive but does not go by what the law says. That until one individual appears before they can be arraigned. I don’t understand this kind of practice.

“It is an affront to fair hearing because the privilege of fair hearing allows us to raise any issue. Keeping them for 10 years will have no impact.

“They have enjoyed administrative bail before with the EFCC, so it won’t hurt their pride if they give them,” he stated.

The 2nd defendant’s counsel also asked for a date for fundamental rights application for his client.

Though the judge refused the oral application for bail, she said the defendants should come formally by filling applications in writing.

She therefore adjourned to 14th and 20th November for response of the 1st defendant to summons and/or arraignment.