Bankole, Nafada’s Trial Unstoppable

It was indeed a bad outing for embattled former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dimeji Bankole and his erstwhile deputy, Usman Bayero Nafada, on Friday at an Abuja High Court presided by Justice Suleiman Belgore who threw away the applications brought by the duo seeking to sack Mr. Festus Keyamo from prosecuting them as well as have the court quash the 17 count charge slammed against them by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.

Bankole and Nafada, through their lawyers led by Chief Adegboyega Awomolo and Tayo Oyetibo, both senior advocates of Nigeria, had applied to the court to disqualify Mr. Keyamo from prosecuting them. Bankole had submitted that Kayamo had been fighting him since he assumed office as the Speaker of the House of Reps and had severally pronounced him a criminal in media interviews and had argued that such being the case that Keyamo, as a prosecutor, is biased and likely to with hold any material that will help him defend himself of the charges brought against him by the anti graft agency.

The accused persons also told the court that Keyamo will persecute them rather than prosecute the matter in view of his bias against them.

They also contended that Mr. Keyamo is not qualified to prosecute them having failed to seek and obtain the fiat of the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, who is constitutionally empowered to initiate and sustain criminal proceedings of this nature.

Furthermore, Nafada and his former boss challenged the jurisdiction of the court to try them and claimed that there is no linkage between them and the allegations contained in the Proof of Evidence filed before the court alongside their charge by the EFCC and urged the court to exercise its powers and to quash the charges brought against them.

In his ruling, Justice Belgore, on the issue of alleged bias by the prosecutor held that held that the accused persons need not worry about the bias of the prosecutor noting that it will not affect their trial in any way as Mr. Keyamo is not the court.

According to the judge, “The only bias that is critical is that of the jurist. Bias must be personal and flow from ill motivated feeling on the part of a judge to be of any consequent. As for the prosecutor, he need not be completely unbiased in prosecuting a case, afteralln there is the bias of the defence who wants an accused person to be set free. It is near impossible to have a prosecutor who is completely unbiased in a case he’s prosecuting”.

He subsequently refused to disqualify Keyamo from the matter.

The court went on to hold that Mr. Keyamo, like every other trained legal practitioner, and indeed any other person, as provided for in section 174 of the Constitution, can initiate and sustain any criminal proceedings subject to the AGF taking over the matter to continue or discontinue with it.

It noted that Keyamo, as a social crusader, whose past activities had stood him out as such had been consistent in his agitation for social justice and predates the tenure of Bankole as Speaker of the House or Representatives, and a trained private legal practitioner, can initiate, sustain and prosecute the former Speaker and his Deputy subject however, to the taking over for continuance or discontinuance by the AGF.

Justice Belgore observed that section 174 (1) of the Constitution, as amended, envisages a situation where a legally qualified person can initiate and sustain a criminal proceeding before any court in the land and that any person, including Mr. Keyamo, can initiate and prosecute the case.

On their challenge of the court’s jurisdiction to try them, the court querried whether as Speaker and Deputy Speakers respectively whether they were exempted from trial by any immunity clause or whether they cannot now be tried now that they are no longer in office for crimes the were alleged to have committed while in office? It answered these questions in the negative and held that the court has the jurisdiction to try them.

While also declining their application to quash the charges, the court held that there is a linkage between the duo and the alleged crimes of obtaining the controversial loans and the illegal sharing of the monies as well as other alleged crimes as both were principal officers of the House at that material time.

The court specifically observed that the authorization for the obtaining of the loans were issued by the first accused peron, Hon Dimeji Bankole and that it was that authorization for the loans that set all other allegations rolling.

Finally, the court ruled that Bankole and Nafada have a case to answer which can only be done in a proper trial where the prosecution will attempt to establish his case with the contents of the proof of evidence while the accused may enter a no case submission or call witnesses to defend themselves.

The court also indicated its readiness to conclude the trial before December and adjourned to 21st through to the 25th of November for trial.

—Nnamdi Felix / Abuja