By Ikechukwu Nnochiri

ABUJA—The embattled former National Security Adviser, NSA, Col. Sambo Dasuki, (retd), yesterday, failed to persuade an Abuja High Court sitting at Maitama, to quash the 19-count money laundering charge that was preferred against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC.

Former national security adviser of ex-president Goodluck Jonathan, Sambo Dasuki

Dasuki, who was accused of diverting over N32 billion from accounts the office of the NSA operated with both the Central Bank of Nigeria and other financial institutions, had in an application he filed on January 12, prayed the court to invoke its powers under section 6(6) of the 1999 constitution, as amended, and discharge him from the case.

He based the application on refusal by the Federal Government to release him from detention, despite the fact that he had perfected all the conditions upon which the court granted him bail on December 18, 2015.

Dasuki, through his team of lawyers led by a former President of the Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, Mr. Joseph Daudu, SAN,  urged the court to not only discharge him, but to also prohibit the EFCC from further prosecuting him on the instant case or any other charge, or even approaching any court in the country to seek any relief against him.

Alternatively, he prayed the high court to stay further proceeding on the matter pending his release from detention, contending that the action of the Federal Government against him was in contempt of a subsisting court order.

Daudu argued that the continued incarceration of his client has greatly affected his chance to prepare a formidable defence against all the criminal charges pending against him before different courts.

Ruling on the matter yesterday, trial judge, Justice Hussein Yusuf, dismissed the application which he said was bereft of merit.

Justice Yusuf disagreed with Dasuki that his continued detention was in contempt of the order he made on December 18, stressing that the DSS, which currently has the former NSA in its custody, was not a party to the case before the court.


Comments expressed here do not reflect the opinions of vanguard newspapers or any employee thereof.