By  SIMON EBEGBULEM

BENIN – A Federal High Court sitting in Benin, Edo State, yesterday, adjourned till  May 31, 2011, to rule on whether the  court has the jurisdiction to hear the charge brought before it by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC,  against former Governor of Edo State, Chief Lucky Igbinedion, bordering on allegations of corruption.

The Commission had filed  a 192-count charge of corruption against the former governor, whose running battle with the latter started in 2007, when the commission charged him before a Federal High Court, Enugu, over graft allegations.

The Commission and Igbinedion entered into a plea bargain and the matter was resolved, with the former governor, made to  pay the sum of N3.5million and forfeited some of his property. However, the case resurfaced this year, with the Commission filing a fresh charge against the former governor.

Consequently,    counsel to Igbinedion, Ricky Tarfa, SAN, filed an application, challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear the case. He argued tha thet court in Enugu had earlier convicted the former governor for the same offence. Tarfa had further argued that it  would be a case of trying Igbinedion again,  since the fresh allegations raised by the EFCC were the same allegations that were dealt with at the Federal High Court, Enugu.

At the hearing of the matter, yesterday, Igbinedion’s counsel, tackled  the EFCC counsel,  on the issue of jurisdiction.  Tarfa, who argued first, stalled  moves by counsel to EFCC, to compel the court to make the accused person sit in front of the court. He adopted his written address.

He argued that his objection was based on the provision of section 36, sub section 10 of the 1999 constitution,  which provides that if any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution, the constitution shall prevail and that law shall be to the extent of the inconsistency, voided.”

According to him, the section provides that “no person who shows that he has been tried by a court of competent jurisdiction for a criminal offence, and either convicted or acquitted shall again be tried for that offence or for a criminal offense having the same ingredients as the offence.”