By SIMON EBEGBULEM

Chief Lucky Igbinedion

Edo State indigenes were shocked when they read in the media about fresh corruption charges leveled against the former Governor of Edo State, Chief Lucky Igbinedion by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC. It was shocking because a Federal High Court sitting in Enugu, had in 2008, delivered judgment on the matter after the EFCC and Chief Igbinedion agreed on what should be refunded, it was plea bargain.

Trial judge in the matter was Justice Abdu Kafarati. But to the chagrin of many in Edo State, the matters resurrected again shortly after the Presidential primaries of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, in Abuja. When the matter was heard initially in Enugu, the EFCC filed 196 charges against the former governor and majority of the charges bordered on duty tour, security allowances and money spent on hosting of visitors.

Though security votes for political office holders are hardly accounted for but in that case, the EFCC frowned at the disbursement. It was discovered that the person disbursing the security vote deposited the fund in a private account, which is contrary to the law according to the EFCC. However, after all the charge were leveled against the former Governor, and in order not to prolong the process, they suggested a plead bargain. The only count that was used against him was on the issue that he failed to declare his GTB Account number while filling his asset declaration form.

Following the agreement reached between the EFCC and Igbinedion, the suspect and one of the companies mentioned in the suit, Gava Corporation pleaded guilty. Igbinedion was made to forfeit the sum of N3.5million and Gava forfeited N500million. But not satisfied with the judgment, the EFCC argued that the former Governor should have been jailed and therefore, appealed the judgment.

The appeal is still pending at the Appeal Court, Enugu until the EFCC filed the recent charge against him. That was why thousands of youths trooped to the court, when the matter came up for hearing at the Federal High Court in Benin, last week. Former Governor Igbinedion, Patrick Eboigbodin, Michael Igbinedion, Gava Corporation, Romrig Nigeria Limited, PML Securities Company Limited and PML (Nigeria) Limited, are facing a 66 count charge of money laundering and illegal withdrawal of funds belonging to the state estimated at over N2billion, during his tenure as Governor of Edo State.

But in a motion of notice brought pursuant to section 36 (9) and (10) of the 1999 Constitution (As amended by the 1st and 2nd Amendments), Igbinedion and the other accused persons are contending that the commission lacked the jurisdiction and competence to arraign the accused persons/applicants, adding that it would be “double jeopardy”, since the Federal High Court in Enugu, had adjudicated on the same matter.

According to them, the “ ingredients of the offence in the proceedings of the charge in suit FHC/B/11c/2011” with the same accused persons, “ are the same with that in charge No.FHC/EN/6c/2008 in respect of which the court delivered the judgment on December 18, 2008 following a plea bargain.

“The complainant/ respondent herein curiously lodged an appeal against the said judgment delivered by the Justice Kafarati at the Court of Appeal in Appeal No.CA/E/207M/2010, which the said appeal is pending before the Enugu Division of the Court of Appeal and in respect of which the appeal has been entered with both the appelant’s and the respondents briefs having been filed.

“The present charge FHC/B/11c/2011 is caught by the doctrine of double jeopardy. The present charge is incurably bad and it is a violent abuse of the processes of the court by reason of which the court is deprived of its jurisdiction and competence to arraign trial, hear and determine the same.” However, a legal practitioner in Edo State, Mr Jacob Aliu, reviewed the situation and described the recent fresh charge against Lucky Igbinedion as political. According to him, “it is the same people that are fighting James Ibori that are still fighting him. It is purely a political matter. How can a competent court in Enugu hear the same issue and pass judgment and now the same EFCC, which agreed that the man should plead bargain is now coming back to say they are in court again on the same issue. It is wrong in law to re-litigate a matter before a competent court, which had passed judgment on it.” However, Vanguard learnt that Igbinedion’s problem resurfaced after the presidential primaries of the PDP due to his alleged seeming support for the former Vice-President, Atiku Abubakar. It was said that the former Governor, who is a long time friend of Alhaji Abubakar, threw his weight behind his (Atiku’s) ambition and as a result is suffering the wrath of the presidency.

Farida Waziri, EFCC chair

The former Governor has joined his friend and brother, Chief James Ibori among the Governors being punished for their loyalty Atiku. However, the youths who protested at the premise of the court when the matter came up last week, said that “every body cannot belong to a particular click and that is politics. Why would the EFCC want to be used as a willing tool to fight perceived enemies? They should leave Igbinedion alone.

“This was a man who reached an agreement with the EFCC, he forfeited a lot of his property as a result and you are now filing fresh charges against him on the same issue. This was what happened during the Chief Olusegun Obasanjo administration and it is sad that we are going on the same road again. We are aware that former Governors from the North and others, who were said to have looted more than the charges against Igbinedion are all walking freely on the streets. What has the EFCC done about his matter. It is sad that they have decided to single out Ibori and Igbinedion for persistent embarrassment but we will resist any attempt to intimidate Igbinedion because no matter what any body think about him, he is our son and we must not allow any body to kill him,” the youths said. However, when the fresh legal fire works commenced last week, trial judge in the matter, Justice Adamu Hobom, rejected the plea by EFFC to issue a bench warrant on the former Governor and his associates over their failure to appear in court for the hearing of the case. Counsel to the EFCC, Rotimi Jacobs, who fired the first salvo, pleaded with the court to issue a bench warrant against Igbinedion and others for their failure to appear in court in person on the day of hearing.

He argued that “in a serious criminal matter such as this, they cannot sit in the comfort of their homes and say their lawyers will do it for them. I am not unmindful of an application filed on February 4. That application cannot be substituted for their physical appearance in court. They have to be physically present even if they are challenging your Lordship jurisdiction. In view of this, I urge my Lord to make an order of bench warrant so that we will go and bundle them here.”

But countering his argument, Counsel to Igbinedion, Ricky Tafar, SAN, pointed out that it was premature for the EFCC to be requesting for a bench warrant against his client when the motion before the court, which is contesting the jurisdiction of the court to hear the case after a competent court had adjudicated on the matter in Enugu, was yet to be argued.

“We filed a motion that it would be double jeopardy. The basis of our application is that no person shall be tried twice in the same court over the same charge. We believe that our client has no case to answer because the matter had been handled by a competent court before now, unless we are saying that the court in Enugu is no longer competent. So my client has no problem in appearing but it is only when that motion is treated that our client can now come to the court. We are not afraid of trial, our client has been tried before so appearing in court is not a problem,” he argued.

In his ruling, Justice Hobom, commended the argument of both counsel and held that the court will not issue a bench warrant immediately, but admonished the accused persons to “put up appearance at the next sitting while the application in opposition to the charges be heard without any further delay”.

He added, however, that the bench warrant may be applied if the accused persons fail to appear at the next sitting. The case was adjourned till March 22, 2011.