Farouk Lawan
A
member of the House of Representatives, Farouk Lawan, on Friday failed
in his bid to quash the seven counts brought against him by the
Independent Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Commission,
over allegations that he demanded and received the sum of $620,000 as
bribe from a businessman, Femi Otedola.
Lawan allegedly committed the crime
while serving as chairman of the House of Representatives Ad Hoc
Committee on Monitoring of Fuel Subsidy Regime.
An application filed by Lawan, and his
co-accused, Mr. Boniface Emenalo, to quash the charge was dismissed by
an Abuja High Court, presided by Justice Mudashiru Oniyangi.
The court held that Lawan and Emenalo must face trial as the proof of evidence filed by the ICPC had established a prima facie case against them.
In the application to quash the charge,
Lawan and Emenalo’s counsel, Chief Rickey Tarfa (SAN), had attempted to
stop the trial by challenging the jurisdiction of the court.
Tarfa had argued that the court should
not have granted ICPC the permission to prefer the charge against his
clients because the prosecution failed to provide materials which were
required for the judge to grant the permission.
Arguing that the foundation of the case was faulty, Terfa also asked the court to discharge the accused persons since no prima facie case had been established against them.
According to him, the prosecutor failed
to comply with the provisions of section 155 (1)(b) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, which required that statements of witnesses be attached
to the proof of evidence.
But ICPC lawyer, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), had opposed Lawan’s attempt to quash the charge.
Awomolo had asked the court to dismiss the application, which he described as a tactic to waste the time of the court.
The prosecution counsel maintained that
the Supreme Court had held in many cases that the purpose of seeking a
leave of court to prefer charges was to ensure that frivolous criminal
charges were not filed and not to allow the accused persons to see the
details of the charges against them.
He argued that the charges remained
valid, adding that the non-attachment of witnesses’ statements did not
undermine the legality of the charges.
However, ruling on the application on Friday, Justice Oniyangi held that Lawan and Emenalo must stand trial.
He overruled the accused persons’
argument that the court lacked the jurisdiction to hear and determine
the matter, noting that the court had the inherent jurisdiction to hear
the suit.
The judge equally maintained that,
contrary to the defence counsel’s submission, section 185 of the
Criminal Procedure Code does not require the prosecution to attach the
statements of all its witnesses to the proof of evidence.
He said, “The position of section 185,
to me, is as clear as crystal. It does not suggest that written
statements of all witnesses should be the proof of evidence.
“The non-attachment of written statements of other witnesses does not render the charge incompetent.
“What the court should look at in order to determine whether a prima facie case has been established against the accused is the proof of evidence.
“To me, once there is evidence that will
suggest to the court that the accused has some questions to answer in
the proof of evidence, then there is a prima facie case.”
He also held that the leave granted the
ICPC to prefer the charge against the accused persons was not an abuse
of the court process, as argued by the defence.
“In the light of the foregoing, it
cannot be said that the application for leave (to prefer the charge
against the accused persons) is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive.
“The court cannot surreptitiously change
here to say that the materials constitute an abuse of court process;
they are neither malicious nor contain elements of bias,” he said.
Having ordered Lawan and Emenalo to face trial, Justice Oniyangi adjourned the case till June 19, 2013 for hearing.
Lawan and Emenalo had pleaded not guilty to the charge when they were arraigned on January 31, 2013.
They are being tried under the Violation of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000.
PUNCH
No comments:
Post a Comment