17th October, 2011
Justice Donatus Okorowo of a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Monday adjourned till 19 December to rule on two applications brought by embattled former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dimeji Bankole, seeking to disqualify Mr. Festus Keyamo from prosecuting him on behalf of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, as well as quashing the 16-count criminal charge preferred against him by EFCC.
EFCC had slammed a 16-count criminal charge on the former speaker which bothers on contract inflation to the tune of N894 million.
Parading a team of four senior advocates of Nigeria led by Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, the former speaker told the court to quash the criminal charge brought against him on the ground that the Proof of Evidence did not disclose any shred of criminality against him and that the counts in the charge sheet do not comply with Section 58(4)(a) of the Public Procurement Act 2007 under which he’s being charged.
He further argued that the prosecutor, Mr. Keyamo, is having a personal malice against him and as such, could not be an unbiased prosecutor, adding that the court should disqualify the prosecutor and order the Attorney General of the Federation, AGF, to re-assign the case to another prosecutor.
Awomolo stated that the offence stated in Section 58 can only be committed by specified persons such as contractors, suppliers and procurement officers and that the former Speaker did not occupy any of the said offices, hence he could not be affected by the provisions of that Act.
He further argued that EFCC had failed to state the actual amount of the contract and the inflated sum, adding that the proof of evidence does not justify his client being subjected to criminal trial.
On the second application to disqualify Mr. Keyamo, Awomolo argued that the prosecutor must enjoy the confidence of people and seen to be just but because of Mr. Keyamo’s previous and current public condemnation of Bankole, he cannot be seen as an unbiased prosecutor and as such cannot generate public confidence in the whole public prosecution.
Responding to the applications, Festus Keyamo submitted that the office of the accused person comes under the contemplation of Sections 57 & 58 of Public Procurement Act, adding that the sections included “all public officers” among those that can be prosecuted under the Act.
He added that Section 7 of the Criminal Code treats those who directly commit an offence and those in position to prevent the commission of such offence alike.
Keyamo further stated that Bankole had aided and abetted the commission of the offence and hence he must be allowed to undergo trial, adding that the prosecution is not restricted to the proof of evidence especially before a Federal High Court.
On the issue of his disqualification, Keyamo argued that the accused is coming too late with such application, adding that if the defence had failed to stop him while preferring the charge and while arguing the bail application then they could not stop him from going ahead with the trial.
Keyamo added that the 1999 Constitution does not question in explicit language the partiality of the prosecutor, stating that the prosecutor must believe in his case and in the guilt of the accused.
He further submitted that by virtue of Section 167 of the Criminal Code, that he could not be disqualified, adding that the prosecutor must be partial by knowing where he stands.
He further submitted that the defence should have joined him as a defendant in the application brought to challenge his competence to try the accused and that having failed to do so, that they have breached his fundamental right to fair hearing.
Upon hearing the submissions of both parties, the court adjourned till 19 December for ruling.
By Nnamdi Felix / Abuja