 |
| Federal High Court Jos |
THE OCHEKPE
TRIAL: FIERCE ARGUMENTS BETWEEN COUNSELS PROMPT ADJOURNMENT
By
Joseph A Adudu
15th
February, 2018
The case between Federal Republic of Nigeria
and Mrs. Sarah Reng Ochekpe, Evang. Leo Jinong, Raymond Dabo came up for
hearing at the Federal High Court Jos Division yesterday. The three are being
prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on issue
bordering on money laundering involving the sum of Four Hundred and Fifty
Million Naira (N450m) in 2015.
When the case with file NO. FHC/J/14/c/2017
was called, Counsel to the Defendants, S. Oyawole, Esq, drew the attention of
the court to the fact that on 22nd January 2018, the Honourable
Court while granting bail to the Defendants, made in its ruling that S. G. Odey
who was the lead Counsel for the Defendants, to sign and stand in as a surety
for the Defendants. He said that in view of the fresh bail conditions imposed
on the Defendants on the 13th day of February 2018, which they have
perfected, he applied that S. G. Odey be discharged as surety for the
Defendants. The Prosecution Counsel did not oppose the application,
consequently, the court discharged S.G Odey as surety to the defendants.
The Prosecution Counsel, A.Y Muntaka
thereafter, told the court that the matter was slated for definite hearing by
order of court adding that three witnesses were in court and they were ready
to proceed.
However, defence counsel told the court that
documents and statements of the witnesses should be given to the Defendants.
According to him, it was in line with section 36(6)(b) of the 1999 Constitution
which enjoins the Prosecution to give the Defendants, adequate time and
facilities for their defence, stressing that facilities have not been defined
by the constitution, however, in the case of Okoye v COP (2015) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1488) at page 300 F-H; 301 A-C, the
Supreme Court has defined facilities, thereby giving it a definition to include
statements of the prosecution witnesses. He said that once a request is made to
the prosecution, the prosecution will make statements and documents they intend
to rely on, available to the Defendants to assist them prepare their case so
that no surprises sprung on them during hearing. Counsel said these facilities
include those that will assist the defence to effectively cross-examine the
witnesses that the Prosecution intends to call. He submitted that the provision
of the ACJN cannot take away the provision of section 36(6)(b) of the Constitution.
Responding, prosecution counsel said the era
was one of substantial justice not technicalities and refer to the case of State v. Salawu (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.
1279) 883 at 914 adding that the case of Okoye v. COP is distinguishable with the
facts of the case before the court because the Supreme Court according to the
counsel, made the pronouncement prior to the enactment of the ACJA. He said it
is the same issue that the Act was enacted to cure that defect and that the law
was made pursuant to the Constitution. Counsel added that the Constitution
states that adequate time and facility be given to the Defendant but did not
give definition of what facilities entails and Section 379(1) of the ACJA was
born to cure that defect. He said Stating the summary of witnesses is all that
was needed which is contained in the proof of evidence dated 13th
December, 2017 which also, was before the court. Counsel further noted that notice
of trial documents filed together with the initial charge; list of witnesses
and summary are attached in compliance with Section 379 of the ACJA. According
to counsel, “moreover, the Defence counsel said in his submission that we are
under duty to serve them all documents we intend to rely on trial. All these
documents are attached and have been served on the Defendants. Counsel can only
complain, if fresh evidence was introduced. The witnesses we intend to call,
none of them had statement taken down that we intend to rely on. These
witnesses appearing before your Lordship are doing so in line of their duty,
none of them was invited in the cause of investigation. So, we therefore, have
a no written statement that we hope to use on their behalf. There are here to
answer questions on what happened in the cause of their duty, as we cannot
bring Fidelity bank to the court, so we brought representatives. I urge you to
refuse the Application of the defence Counsel.”
 |
| Mrs Ochekpe |
However, in his response, defence counsel
submitted that the case of Statev Salawu as cited by counsel to the Prosecution
supports the position of the Defendant’s application. According to him, “technical
justice would have been given a pride of place if constitutional rights are
jettisoned which is the right to be provided with documents. The case we are
relying on is on all fours with what is happening in this case. The case of
Okoye v. COP was decided on the 8th of May 2015, by the Supreme
Court while considering the ACJA and gave prominence to Section 36(6)(b)of the 1999 Constitution and in the end found
that the prosecution is under obligation to provide to the defendants facilitates
to defend the case. My Lord if they do not have these documents they should say
so. I urge my lord to grant the application”.
At
this juncture, the judge asked defence counsel to take the proof of evidence
and tell the court what is there and what is not there.
Defence counsel stated that Statement of
defendants was there but statement of complaint (that is
EFCC) was not there. Also, written petition initiating memo to the EFCC was
there. He said first letter of investigation to Fidelity Bank was there,
however, counsel said that the list of witnesses which the prosecution provided
had a total of eleven witnesses to be called and that there was no statement of
any of them in the document filed and served on the defendants stressing that
it is common knowledge that prosecutors must have taken evidence which they
will use to know which witnesses they would call to help their case, they
should furnish the Defence with those statements to enable them scan through
and start hearing.
In his response, prosecution counsel said that in respect
of witness statements, the provision of the ACJA provides for a summary of the
statements which they have attached to the charge filled, however, he said they
do not have any written statement of the witnesses. “We do not state that this
should be added under 379(1) (iv) of ACJA says statement of defendants should
be attached that is what we did. We gave summary of witnesses’ statements in
compliance with the law. We just have to talk of their involvement in the line
of duty. I urge the court to overrule them and continue the case”.
At this point,
Justice Musa Kurna said “having heard fierce but brief arguments between both
counsels, I need time to study the cases as presented by both counsels and
avoid giving a Bench Ruling. The case is adjourned to the 8th and 9th,
march, 2018, for Ruling/Hearing. Bail of the Defendants continues on the same
terms and conditions, as they have been consistent with their bail conditions
and has continued to appear in Court.”
Post a Comment