By Dayo Benson & Abdulwahab Abdulah

A fresh bid Tuesday by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, to arraign the former Managing Director of the Intercontinental Bank Plc, Dr. Erastus Akingbola before a Lagos High Court, for criminal charges has raised questions in legal circles.

Akingbola had earlier being arraigned before a Federal High Court, Lagos, presided over by Justice Abubakar Tijani, a United Kingdom court and the Security and Exchange Tribunal over similar allegations.

The Tuesday arraignment attempt came against the backdrop of a subsisting stay of proceeding order by a Federal High Court, Judge, Justice Charles Archibong restraining the commission from going ahead with the matter at least for now.

When the matter came up before Justice Habeeb Abiru of the Lagos High Court, sitting in Ikeja, the counsel representing Akingbola and his aide, Chief Felix Fagbohungbe, SAN, had vehemently opposed the arraignment of Akingbola on the ground that the accused persons have a pending application before the court which must be heard before any arraignment could take place. EFCC through its counsel, Mr. Kola Awodein, SAN, urged the court to order the accused persons to be formally arraigned on the fresh charges preferred against them.

Akingbola had filed a motion seeking the court’s protection from being arraigned in Ikeja High court on the ground that arraigning him there will be a double jeopardy, since similar offences have been preferred against him before a Federal High court in Lagos. He also maintained that the anti graft agency could not dock him, since he had obtained an order restraining the agency from doing so before a federal high court.

Erastus Akingbola

Awodein, EFCC counsel, had argued that the application before the court was not challenging the jurisdiction of the court to arraign Akingbola and others. He also submitted that Section 210 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Lagos state requires that an accused person shall enter into the dock in a criminal matter.

Farida Waziri, EFCC chair

Justice Abiru in his ruling, directed Akingbola to be moved into the dock, saying since the application of the accused persons did not challenge the jurisdiction of his court to entertain the matter.

Justifying his position, that his arraignment was a double jeopardy, Akingbola had complained that, “The case I am being tried for is exactly what I am equally facing in United Kingdom. If you add the Security and Exchange Tribunal case, it will mean the cases are being tried in three different courts”, submitting that the anti graft commission was trying to cow him in submission to plea bargaining.

He had however, vowed to pursue his case through all available legal means to ensure justice is done.

The EFCC had however denied the allegations made by Akingbola and other senior ex- bankers that they were being persecuted. The body had stated that indeed, the bankers had cases to answer and it was ready to justify its allegations in courts.

EFCC boss, Mrs. Farida Waziri in one of her interactions with journalists denied any persecution of the bankers, insisting that their arraignments were in accordance to known laws.

Denying the allegation that the anti graft body was losing confidence in the Federal High Court, she also gave reasons why the ex-bankers are being arraigned at the state high courts. According to her, “As you know we have charge under the penal code, we also have charge under the criminal code as well as the EFCC Act and the ICPC Act. There are different laws guiding the different charges, we cannot merge the offences together. That is why they are being arraigned on different charges at the other courts.

“We have good Judges in the Federal High courts that are ready to handle the EFCC cases. What we do is that if the offence is meant for the Federal High Court, we charge them at the Federal High court and if the offence is relating to the state high court we charge them in the state high court.”

Against the background of exchanges between the parties, questions being raised at legal circles are legion:

Is it true that CBN is using the EFCC to harass and coerce former Bank MDs to plea bargain?

Is it tue that the recent arrest and incarceration of the former Bank MDs’ spouses is to put pressure on them?

How far is it tue that MDs have been told that unless they plea bargain, they will be rubbished and that as far back as August 2009, the clear threat was that any MD that challenges removal in court will be damaged?

Abuse of Courts and Court Processes

How true is it that the ex-MDs are being charged to at least three courts namely Federal High Court, Lagos High Court, Investment and Securities Tribunal for same allegations and in the case of Mr. Akingbola the matter is also before United Kingdom Crown Court?

Is it true that the EFCC has repeatedly not only refused to be served Federal High Court order restraining it from continuing to detain Mrs. Atuche, they have actually chased the Bailiffs away from their office?.

How far is it true that order to hold the Ex Bank MDs further, the EFCC took them before the Chief magistrate court 10, Botanical Garden, Apapa Road, Ebute Meta at 7pm on May 6 and judgment given at 7.30pm?

Did the EFCC disobeyed Federal High Court order restraining it from re-arraigning Mr Erastus Akingbola in any other court on the issues properly? These and other questions will be answered in the court in days ahead.