Court to hear Yahaya Bello’s response to summon on November 14

A federal capital territory high court has fixed November 14 for the possible arraignment of Yahaya Bello, former governor of Kogi state.

On October 3, Maryanne Anenih, presiding judge, ordered Bello to appear before the court on October 24 to be arraigned on a 16-count charge preferred against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

The charge borders on alleged criminal breach of trust to the tune of N110,446,470,089, contrary to sections 96 and 311 of the Penal Code Law Cap.89, Laws of Northern Nigeria, 1963, and punishable under section 312 of the same law.

Anenih ordered the EFCC to publish the summon in a national newspaper, at Bello’s last known address, and in conspicuous places on the premises of the court.

However, Bello was absent at the court session on Thursday.

Rotimi Oyedepo, the EFCC lawyer, told the court that the commission pasted the summons and the charge as directed by the judge.

Interjecting, the judge stated that she only gave an order for the summons and not the charge to be pasted.

Oyedepo sought an adjournment of the case adding that he expects Bello to be in court on November 14 considering the 30-day duration of the summon.

However, Joseph Daudu, who appeared for the 2nd defendant (Abdulsalami Hudu), objected to the request for adjournment. 

He said his client was ready to proceed with the arraignment as scheduled, adding that the defendants should be treated independently.

“You cannot be using somebody as a human shield when they are not in hostage. I don’t like this practice,” he said.

Counsel to the 3rd defendant, A.M. Aliyu, also aligned his submissions with that of Daudu.

In the alternative, he prayed the court to allow him move an oral application for his client’s bail.

Opposing, Oyedepo said the bail application could not be taken because all the defendants are joined in the same charge.

However, Daudu insisted that delaying the arraignment due to the absence of one defendant negates the principle of fair hearing. 

“It is an affront to fair hearing because the privilege of fair hearing allows us to raise any issue. Keeping them for 10 years will have no impact,” he said.

“They have enjoyed administrative bail before with the EFCC, so it won’t hurt their pride if they give them.”

The 2nd defendant’s counsel also asked for a date for the fundamental rights application for his client. 

Although the judge refused the oral bail application, she said the defendants should file written bail applications before the court.

She adjourned hearing on Bello’s response to the court summon, or arraignment of the defendants, to November 14 and 20.