Headline News
Alamieyeseigha asks court to stop trial
By Vanguard - By Innocent Anaba
Dec 22, 2005, 17:24

LAGOS— IMPEACHED Bayelsa State governor, Chief Diepreye Alamieyeseigha, has challenged his trial before a Federal High Court sitting in Lagos, urging the court presided over by Justice Mohammed Shuaibu to stop his (Alamieyeseigha) arraignment on money laundering charges by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
The court will tomorrow decide whether to stop the arraignment of Alamieyeseigha or not.
At the resumed hearing in the matter, counsel to Alamieyeseigha, Prof Alfred Kasumu (SAN), told the court that he had an application, urging the court for:

lAn order staying further proceedings in this matter pending the hearing and determination of the two suits filed in this court (Federal High Court) in the Abuja Division and Bayelsa State High Court because of the issues raised thereof.
lDecline jurisdiction to entertain this charge until the claim by the first accused (Alamieyeseigha) to immunity from arrest and prosecution conferred on him by section 308 of the 1999 constitution before he was impeached, which are issues of the forefront of the cases filed by Alamieyeseigha in the two suits referred to in above.
lThat this action (charge against Alamieyeseigha) itself was not commenced in strict compliance with the Criminal Procedure Act and the Federal High Court Act.

After reading out the prayers sought by the first accused person, the presiding judge said the two suits at the Federal High Court, Abuja and the one before the Bayelsa State High Court, referred to by the defence counsel were both civil matters, to which Prof Kasumu responded in the affirmative.

Prof. Kasumu urged the court to stop the arraignment of Alamieyeseigha pending the determination of the two suits. According to him, the suit in Bayelsa is challenging the process of impeachment, while the Abuja suit is seeking to stop the Federal Government from charging Alamieyeseigha to court for any offence pending the outcome of the suit.

He argued that “if in Bayelsa, the case succeeds, that case will lead to the reversal of roles and Alamieyeseigha will become ‘is’ (governor) and not ‘was’ (former governor). But if this matter is not stayed, we would have gone ahead with the trial here on the basis that he has been removed and if we go ahead here and we succeed in Bayelsa, the court would have gone through the process which need not to have been commenced in the first place.”

Prof. Kasumu further argued that the “action in Abuja is the one in which he (Alamieyeseigha) is challenging his arrest and detention when he still enjoys immunity granted him under section 308 of the 1999 constitution. The suit is challenging his constitutional right not to be arrested and detained while enjoying immunity. If he is arraigned here, the accused person would have been prejudiced and irreparable loss would have been suffered by him if the Abuja case is decided in his favour.” He urged the court to stay further hearing in the matter.

Counsel to 2nd to the 4th accused persons, Chief Mike Ozekhome, who filed a preliminary objection challenging the suit, asked the court to strike out the names of the 2nd to 4th accused persons for lack of competence on the part of the court to entertain the charge against them.

He contended that his clients were not served the charge as provided under the law and as such could not be called upon to enter a plea. According to him, “the prosecution sought to tie the fate of Alamieyeseigha to that of the 2nd to the 4th accused persons, that what ever befalls Alamieyeseigha is directly linked to 2nd to the 4th. But our contention is that 2nd to the 4th have not been served. The process of summoning anybody to this court, whether in a criminal or civil matter, is provided under Order 13, Rule 8 of the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules. The 2nd to the 4th having not been brought before this court to stand trial cannot be asked to make a plea or a plea entered on their behalf if they refuse to enter a plea.”
Chief Mike Okoye, counsel to the 5th to 8th accused persons adopted the arguments of Prof. Kasumu and Ozekhome, and added that his clients were not served with the charge and as such the court could not proceed to entertain the charge against them until the court is satisfied that all persons in the matter have been properly served to appear before it.

Replying, prosecution counsel, Mr Rotimi Jacobs on whether a case had been made for the stay of hearing of the charge, contended that the court processes of the Abuja and Bayelsa courts attached by the defence counsel and which is the basis for asking for the stay of further hearing in the matter, failed to convince the court that there is a need to stay hearing in the matter. According to him, “the grounds for their asking for a stay (Abuja and Bayelsa court papers) do not show that they were filed before any court and the affidavits also do not show that they were taken before any commissioner for oath, hence there is no basis to ask for a stay as it failed to meet the requirement of section 111 of the Evidence Act in cases involving public documents.”

He further urged the court to refuse the application for a stay. On the contention of counsel to the other accused persons, he said the prosecution served the charge on the accused persons and urged the court to discountenance their arguments.



© Copyright 2000 - 2002 by Naijapost News