By Ikechukwu Nnochiri

…as ICPC raises alarm over plot to scuttle trial
ABUJA—Justice Mudashiru Oniyangi of an Abuja high court, yesterday, fixed July 10 to rule on an application filed by  former Chairman and Secretary of the House of Representatives Ad-hoc Committee on Fuel Subsidy probe, Farouk Lawan and Mr Boniface Emenalo, asking him to hands-off their trial.

The embattled lawmakers, who are facing corruption charges, preferred against them by the Independent Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Commission, ICPC, accused the judge of misappropriating the law when he held that the anti-graft agency successfully established a prima-facie criminal case to warrant their prosecution.

Arguing through their lawyer, Mr Ricky Tarfa, SAN, the duo insisted that the judge caused great injustice against them when he declined to quash the seven-count charge before the court for want of incriminating evidence.

They also maintained that the judge on January 31, erroneously granted leave to the ICPC to file an “incompetent charge”.

It will be recalled that Justice Oniyangi had on May 10, okayed them for trial, after he dismissed an application that sought to quash the charge against them.

In his ruling, Justice Oniyangi said he was satisfied that they have a case to answer, saying he was satisfied that the proof of evidence disclosed sufficient grounds for their trial.

Farouk Lawan, Mr Boniface Emenalo.

Nevertheless, moving their consolidated application asking the judge to stay proceedings before him, pursuant to provisions of section 6 (6a) (b) of the 1999 constitution, as amended, Tarfa, SAN, told the court that his clients had gone before the Appeal Court in Abuja to challenge the ruling which he said was in bad faith.

He argued that the continuation of hearing on the substantive matter would not only jeopardize the “res” of the appeal, but would amount to an affront on the superiority of the appellate court.

The embattled lawmakers relied on the decided case-law in FRN vs Mohammed Sani Abacha, 2008, 5-NWLR, PART 1081 as well as decision in Falana vs Bello, 1995, 9-NWLR, part 418, and insisted that “the appeal has raised a genuine issue of jurisdiction challenging the competence of this court to hear and determine the case against the accused persons.

“We therefore urge your lordship to stay proceeding in this matter pending hearing and determination of our appeal.”

ICPC raises alarm over plot to scuttle trial
However, the ICPC, raised the alarm over what it termed subterranean plot by the accused lawmakers to thwart their prosecution.

Opposing the application for stay, counsel to the commission, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, described the application as “frivolous, vexatious and a design to stall the trial of the accused persons.”

In urging the court to dismiss the application and direct that witnesses be called to testify in the matter, Awomolo, argued that, “by the nature of the charge, the status of the accused persons and the national judicial policy on the trial of corruption cases, no facts are contained in the affidavit to suggest to the court that a grant of stay will serve the interest of justice.

“Stay of proceeding is a very grave, serious and fundamental interruption of the right of the prosecution to prove the criminal conduct of the accused persons.

This application has failed to show or demonstrate special or exceptional circumstances for a stay of proceedings. More so, the issue before the appeal court cannot finally dispose-off the criminal charge of corruption against the accused persons.

“The appeal raised issues that bother on mere procedural technicalities. They are issues that can be taken together in a final appeal if they are eventually convicted.  This is not a case of theft or misappropriation; it is a case of corruption by highly placed public officers.”

Awomolo relied on the decided case-law in Fani Kayode vs FRN, 2011, 4-NWLR, part 1237 and urged the court to discountenance the application for stay.

After listening to the parties, Justice Oniyangi adjourned the case till July 10 for ruling.

Meanwhile, sequel to an order the court made on May 12, Clerk of the House of Representatives, yesterday, tendered five documents before the trial court.

The documents which contained the resolution of the house to probe companies indicted in illegal diversion of fuel subsidy funds as well as the report that was eventually submitted by the Farouk Lawal led panel, was tendered by one Mrs Nkiru Nwabunike, a principal legislative officer, and admitted in evidence by the court.

The court however ordered her to produce the video recordings especially of the day Farouk canvassed for the removal of Femi Otedola’s company among the list of indicted fuel subsidy fraudsters.

Specifically, Farouk and Emenalo were accused of demanding and collecting bribe from the Chairman of Zenon Petroleum and Gas Ltd, Otedola, as an inducement to remove the name of his company from the report of the House of Reps Ad-hoc committee on Monitoring of fuel subsidy regime.

ICPC alleged that they demanded an aggregate sum of $3million, with a view to ensuring that the company escaped prosecution even though the probe Committee had ab-initio found it culpable in fuel subsidy fraud.

Farouk was said to have pocketed the sum of $620, 000 as part payment for the illegal deal.

The anti-graft agency further alleged that Emenalo, while being a public officer, an Assistant Director and Clerk of the Committee on Education of the House of Reps, sometime in April 2012, while acting as the Secretary of the Ad-Hoc Committee, was offered gratification by Otedola but failed to report the offer to any officer of the ICPC or any police officer.

The offence according to ICPC is contrary to section 17 (1) (a), section 8(1) (a) (b) (ii), and section 23 (i) of the Corrupt practices and other Related Offences Act, 2000 and punishable under section 8 (1) 17 (1) and 23(3) of the same Act.

Justice Oniyangi had on February 8, released them on bail after they deposited N10million each, as well as, produced two persons that stood surety for them in like sum.

The trial Judge had ordered them to surrender their international passports and other travelling documents to the court registrar, warning that they should not travel outside the shores of the country without the consent of the court.