The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on Thursday sought an adjournment in its case against Yahaya Bello, the immediate-past governor of Kogi State, and two others, moving the hearing to November 14, 2024.
At the hearing before the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court, EFCC’s counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, explained that following the last court session, a public summons had been issued for the first defendant, Yahaya Bello, instructing that the summons be published. However, Justice Maryann E. Anenih clarified that the court had only ordered the publication of the summons, not the charge itself.
Oyedepo further expressed his expectation that Bello would be present in court by the next hearing on November 14, given the 30-day window provided by the summons. As a result, he requested the court to adjourn the arraignment of all three defendants until that date.
This request was met with opposition from JB Daudu, SAN, who represents the second defendant. Daudu emphasized that the matter was scheduled for arraignment and that the defendants were ready. He argued that all defendants should be treated independently, stating, “You cannot use someone as a human shield when they are not in hostage. I don’t like this practice.”
A.M. Aliyu, SAN, counsel for the third defendant, supported Daudu’s position, proposing that the court consider his client’s bail application as an alternative. However, Oyedepo objected, arguing that bail could not be granted as the charge involved conspiracy, and all defendants needed to be arraigned together.
Oyedepo also informed the court that there was an ongoing application for the enforcement of the second defendant’s fundamental rights, and an oral application for bail could not be entertained at this stage.
Daudu countered, claiming that the EFCC’s stance violated the principles of fair hearing. He remarked, “His argument is persuasive but does not align with the law. It’s an affront to fair hearing to suggest that no individual can be arraigned until all are present.”
He further argued that detaining the defendants for extended periods served no purpose, adding that they had previously been granted administrative bail by the EFCC and it would not harm the agency’s pride to allow bail again.
Although the judge denied the oral bail request, she advised the defence to submit formal written applications. She then adjourned the case to November 14 and November 20 for the response of the first defendant to the summons and the arraignment of all three defendants.
