By INNOCENT ANABA

LAGOS—A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos, adjourned till April 4, 2014  to rule on whether  the criminal charge preferred against the Commissioner for Insurance, Mr. Fola Daniel is valid or not.

Daniel is facing a six-count charge bordering on criminal mispresentation of facts and deliberate falsehood.
Trial judge, Justice Okon Abang, adjourned for ruling, after counsel to the accused, insisted that the charge was not served on the accused personally.

Counsel argued, “The charge was not served on the accused person, but on our office. There was no order of this court that there should be a substituted service. Once they serve on counsel without the accused, there is no proper service. So my lord, decline jurisdiction and set aside this charge. Let them come on a clean slate.”

Counsel further contended that an unsigned and undated written address served on the accused by the prosecution “is worthless and does not have any efficacy in law. My lord, they have not served me any written address as required by law,” adding “the exhibit attached does not show any proof of service. The accused person is Fola Daniel and not the National Insurance Commission.”

Replying, prosecuting counsel,  while admitting that the written address was undated and unsigned, insisted that the counter affidavit and other documents were signed, adding “its not mandatory to have written addresses in criminal matters.”

Prosecution argued, “We submit that the Criminal Procedure Act, which governs the process of criminal matters as in this case does not make it mandatory for written addresses to be made in criminal matters.

“The prosecution used Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rule in support of the prosecution. For now, we don’t have the court’s Criminal Procedure Rule that makes it mandatory for written addresses to be filed as it is filed in civil matters. If I had not filed any written address in support of my counter-affidavit, my lord would still have looked at my counter-affidavit and the exhibits attached and do justice to this matter.”

Prosecution insisted that not signing or dating the document sent to the defence counsel does not affect the counter-affidavit filed by the prosecution since it is a criminal matter, adding that the copy in the court’s file was signed and dated.