Ex Gov Ishaku’s Bid To Halt N27bn Fraud Trial Dismissed
Former Taraba State governor, Darius Ishaku and a former Permanent Secretary in the Ministry for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs in the state, Bello Yero will have to wait till the end of their trial to know their fate in the preliminary objection they filed, challenging the jurisdiction of the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, High Court, Abuja, presided over by Justice S.C. Oriji to entertain their trial.
This was the decision of the court on Wednesday, November 13, 2024, when the matter came up for hearing.
The two former Taraba State’s top shots are being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC on a 15-count charge, bordering on criminal breach of trust, conspiracy and conversion of public funds in the state to the tune of N27billion.
Both defendants in the preliminary objection prayed the court to dismiss the trial based on the lack of jurisdiction by the court to hear the matter arguing that their alleged offence did not take place in Abuja where the court is sitting.
Prosecution counsel, Rotimi Jacobs, SAN, had in his response, stated that the court had jurisdiction on the matter. He pointed to the prosecution’s counter-affidavit and urged the court to dismiss the application of the defence.
“We filed a counter-affidavit to assist the court, sworn to by Agumowo Chidera. We rely on the affidavit and urge your lordship to dismiss the application of the first and second defendant. We also filed a written address, we humbly adopt the said counter-affidavit as our counter argument. The issue of jurisdiction that was raised, your lordship may deliver ruling and save the time of the court. There is substantive jurisdiction which is the law that creates the charge, your lordship has jurisdiction to listen to the charge. Territorial jurisdiction is the one they are alleging. We urge your lordship to dismiss their application,” he said.
In his ruling, Justice Oriji citing Section 396(2) of ACJA, 2015 adjourned ruling on the objection till the end of the trial. He held that Section 396(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, ACJA 2015 provides that “After the plea has been taken, the defendant may raise any objection to the validity of the charge or the information at any time before judgment, provided that such objection shall only be considered along with substantive input and ruling thereof made at the time of delivery of judgment.
Pursuant to this provision, I order that the ruling on the preliminary objections of the defendants shall be delivered at the time of delivery of judgment at the end of the trial.”
He, thereafter, adjourned the matter till January 21, 28 and 29, for continuation of trial.
