Ladipo Sanusi/
A court in Lagos today dismissed an application by former Minister of Petroleum Resources Mrs. Diezani Alison-Madueke to be joined in a pending criminal charge.
Justice Rilwan Aikawa of a Federal High Court described Diezani’s application as “misuse of court process and misconceived.”
The former minister, through her lawyer Mr Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), had on Monday urged the court to issue an order listing her as a defendant in a N500 million fraud charge involving a Senior Advocate of Nigeria Dele Belgore and a former Minister of National Planning Professor Abubakar Suleiman
Ikpeazu further urged the court to grant his application for joinder of the applicant in the sole interest of justice.
Ikpeazu told the court that his client’s name was conspicuously mentioned in a four-count charge and there was no alteration to the fact that she has been charged thus making her a consummated complaint.
Ikpeazu cited section of 494(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, (ACJA) to support his argument adding that a defendant is any person against whom a complaint or charge is made, while a charge refers to an allegation that any named person has committed an offence.
He also argued that from count one to count four the name of his client was mentioned as an accomplice adding that it would be in the interest of justice to join her in the charge.
To further convince the court to grant the application, Ikpeazu also cited the authority of Frn vs Jide Omokore, FHC/Abj/CR/121/2016, which he said bore similarity to the instant case.
Ikpeazu further submitted: “We will have no objections if the applicant’s name is extracted from the charge, then trial can proceed. Otherwise, she should be included in the charge.
“I know that she will be happy to come and face the trial”.
However, Belgore’s lawyer Mr. E. O. Shofude (SAN) raised objection to the application.
Shofunde had argued that the Diezani was not a necessary party to the charge since in the end the court will only decide the guilt or innocence of the first and second accused that were charged.
Shofunde also contended that by the combined provisions of sections 216(2), 221, 273, 274, and 494(1) of the ACJA only the prosecution could exercise the power to amend a process during trial.
He argued that it will be incongruous for any other party to seek an amendment of a criminal charge adding that the court will not make an order in vain.
Besides, counsel argued it would amount to a waste of precious judicial time if the amendment was allowed since progress had been made in the case.
Responding to the application, the EFCC lawyer Rotimi Oyedepo aligned with Shofunde and vehemently opposed the application for joinder
Citing the judicial authority of Ewenla Vs State, he noted that where trial has commenced the state could only amend a charge for purposes of adding offences and not defendants.
He further submitted that allowing an amendment at the stage the case was would amount to a miscarriage of justice.
He said several attempts were initially made by EFCC to interrogate the applicant but that she fled to London after she got wind of the move and has avoided any contact with the commission ever since.
According to Oyedepo, it was too late in the day for the applicant to now seek to be joined in the charge when she is already under investigation in London.
He added that whenever the applicant returns to Nigeria, she can still be tried as time does not run against the prosecution in a criminal trial.
Ruling on the application, Justice Aikawa said: “Section 276(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 disagreed with the applicant’s counsel that the power to amend charge live exclusively with the prosecution and not with any other person.
“I also disagree with applicant that she is a necessary party in the charge. The only parties in the charge are the complainant and the two defendants. Naming the applicant in the charge does not make her a party to the charge in count one to four. The name of the applicant is just a statement.
“This is a case of crying wolf when there was none. The two defendants in the charge can complain of fair hearing but not Mrs. Diezani Alison-Madueke who is not a party in the charge.
“As it is were therefore, I have no option but to agree that the application is a misuse of court process and misconceived.
“The action of the applicant is to avoid justice in United Kingdom. On the whole, I found the application to be lacking in merit and accordingly dismissed”.
In the amended charge, Diezani was alleged to have conspired with Belgore and Sulaiman on or about March 27, 2015 to directly take possession of the sum of N450 million, which they reasonably ought to have known formed part of proceeds of unlawful act.
The trio were also alleged to have taken the said funds in cash, which exceeded the amount authorised by law without going through financial institutions.
Belgore and Sulaiman were also alleged to have paid the sum of N50 million to one Sheriff Shagaya without going through any financial institution.
The offences contravened the provisions of to Sections 15(2)(d), 1(a), 16(d) and 18 of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) (Amendment) Act, 2012.
0