Corruption: Why EFCC prefers Lagos courts as first choice

EFCC Chairman, Ibrahim Lamorde
| credits: File copy

 ADE ADESOMOJU in this piece reports the Economic and Financial Commission’s preference to prosecute high profile suspects in Lagos High Courts in place of the Federal High Courts.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission will likely choose Lagos High Courts ahead of their federal counterparts to prosecute a suspect for offences upon which both have jurisdiction to adjudicate.

“With our experience, when we have an option, we will go for the Lagos High Court,” an EFCC source told our correspondent.

In 2011, when the anti-corruption agency discovered that many of the cases it had instituted against some bank chiefs at the Federal High Court in Lagos were not making any headway, it quickly re-drafted the charges for them to fall within the jurisdiction of the Lagos High Court.

The accused were former Managing Directors and Chief Executive Officers of the defunct Oceanic International Bank, Mrs. Cecilia Ibru; FinBank Nigeria Plc, Mr. Okey Nwosu; Afribank Plc, Mr. Sebastian Adigwe; Union Bank of Nigeria, Bartholomew Ebong, and Intercontinental Bank Plc (defunct), Mr. Erastus Akingbola.

Governor of Central Bank of Nigeria, Lamido Sanusi, had in August 2009, removed the bank chiefs over the huge non-performing loan of their banks. About a month after their removal, they were subsequently charged at the Federal High Court, Lagos with, among other offences, fraud, concealment and reckless granting of loans without adequate collateral.

The offences the accused were accused of were said to be contrary to the provisions of Failed Bank (Recovery of Debts) and Financial Malpractices in Bank Act, Cap F2 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and various provisions of the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act CAP B3, Laws of Nigeria, 2004.

The offences in those laws are those which a state High Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain. However, both state and Federal High Courts have co-ordinate (equal) juridictions in terms of hierarchy.

 Of all the cases involving the former bank chiefs, only the one involving Ibru ended in a conviction after she pleaded guilty to amended charges of three counts.

The one involving Akingbola was abruptly terminated by Justice Charles Archibong (now retired), who struck out the charges on the grounds of lack of diligent prosecution.

 The judge had while striking out the charges, berated former President of the Nigerian Bar Association, Mr. Joseph Daudu,  and other senior lawyers who were appearing for the prosecution,  for allegedly gambling with the case.

 Archibong’s decision on the case and the remarks he made concerning the professional competence of the lawyers were part of the reasons the Nigerian Judicial Council headed by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Aloma Mukhtar, ordered him to proceed on a compulsory retirement in February.

 The rest of the cases involving other bank chiefs continue to witness repeated waves of re-arraignments which seemed to have squeezed life out of them.

 The situation is not different in the case of former Minister of Aviation, Chief Femi Fani-Kayode, whose trial for alleged money laundering has been handled by three judges of the Federal High Court, Lagos.

 The matter has journeyed all the way to the Supreme Court and back to the Federal High Court since it started in December 2008.

 Fani-Kayode was first arraigned before Justice Ramat Mohammed on December 23, 2008. The matter was later re-assigned to Justice Binta Nyako after Justice Mohammed was transferred out of Lagos.

 Trial had already started when Justice Nyako was transferred out of Lagos in 2012. The matter again started afresh in February 2013 before Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia, who was transferred from Abeokuta Division of the Court to replace Nyako.

The wave of re-arraignment hitting  Fani-Kayode’s trial may not have ended as  there is a pending request by the counsel prosecuting the case on behalf of the EFCC, Mr. Festus Keyamo, seeking the transfer of the case to another judge.

Keyamo’s reason for seeking the transfer, a request the accused is opposed to, was that the judge had in the cause of the trial, asked a lawyer from his law firm to produce evidence that he had the authority to prosecute the accused.

In response to the query by the judge, Keyamo appeared before the judge on July 7, 2013, and presented a fiat from the Attorney-General of the Federation,  informing her that he had sent a letter to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Ibrahim Auta, seeking the case to be re-assigned to another judge.

  He said, “The Supreme Court has said it again and again that it is bizarre when a lawyer appears before a court and the judge asks ‘where is your letter?’.

“The Supreme Court said it is bizarre for the court to ask that kind of question.”

He presented to the court a fiat dated June 27, 2013, a development which Fani-Kayode’s counsel claimed amounted to illegal prosecution since 2008.

Ofili-Ajumogobia adjourned sine die (indefinitely) to await the decision of the Chief Judge on Keyamo’s letter.

 After the July 7, 2013 proceeding, Fani-Kayode, through his lawyers, wrote to Justice Auta, asking him to refuse the request of the prosecution to transfer the case to another judge for hearing and determination.

In the letter dated July 9, 2013 and signed by Fani-Kayode’s counsel, Ifedayo Adedipe (SAN) and Olawale Akoni (SAN), the former minister questioned the fiat given to Keyamo by the Attorney-General of the Federation, Mohammed Adoke (SAN), dated June 27.

Fani-Kayode’s letter read in part, “It is obvious that there was no fiat by the Attorney-General in respect of this charge. A charge cannot pre-date a fiat as it appears to be done in this case.

“The fiat could not have been issued by Adoke for the simple reason that this matter commenced in 2008 and Mr Adoke was not the sitting Attorney-General at the time. The letter was signed on  June 27, 2013.

“This simply means that the authority to prosecute – the fiat – was only issued on June 27, 2013.

“It suffices to say that all the actions of Festus Keyamo and Festus Keyamo Chambers in respect of this matter since 2008 have been carried out without authority! The EFCC letter was similarly dated.”

 If Keyamo’s request succeeds, the case will have been presided over by three judges and will then be assigned to the fourth who will also have to start the matter afresh.

 Among other EFCC’s cases which have suffered a fate similar to the trial of Fani-Kayode, is one involving a former Director-General, Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency , Raymond Omatseye, who was charged with contract splitting and bid rigging.

Recently, the trial of the Speaker of Lagos State House of Assembly, Mr. Adeyemi Ikuforiji, for alleged money laundering, had to begin afresh after the former trial judge, Justice Okechukwu Okeke, retired from the bench.

 The EFCC source, who spoke with our correspondent, said the preference of EFCC for the Lagos High Courts was the reason why the anti-corruption agency never took the risk of filing any of the fuel subsidy cases at the Federal High Court.

“I don’t think we will file such case at the Federal High Court,” the source said.

EFCC filed at least seven of the cases before the Lagos High Court.

 Efforts to reach EFCC spokesman, Mr. Wilson Uwujaren, on the issue were unsuccessful.

 Meanwhile, some lawyers, on Sunday disagreed on the conduciveness of the Lagos High Courts to try corruption cases over the Federal High Courts.

 Mr. Yemi Omodele, a criminal defence lawyer, said he did not believe that the Lagos High Courts were more conducive.

 He said, “I do not believe that Lagos courts are more conducive for trying such corruption cases. This is because the judges all attended the same law school. Each case is treated according to its merit.”

 On the other hand, human rights lawyer, Mr. Fred Agbaje, argued that corruption cases were handled faster at the Lagos High Court than at the Federal High Court.

Agaje said, “Except for few and courageous judges of the Federal High Court in Abuja, Lagos is better and faster in handling high profile cases.  Whilst Lagos judges have intimidating records of speedy disposal and conviction, federal judges have none except upholding no case submission.”

 Lagos High Courts, where many courtrooms  are equipped with verbatin recording facilities and whose  laws have witnessed complete transformation from what were inherited from the colonial masters, are better placed to handle cases more expeditiously that their federal counterparts.

Omodele, who was quoted earlier, said,  “In terms of the frequent review of laws, which has been consistently done in Lagos, the  Lagos State Judiciary has simply shown that it is an epitome that should be emulated. Lagos has tried to cope with the challenges of rising degree of crimes and with its frequent review of its laws, it is telling both the Federal Government and other state governments to wake up from their slumber.”

For instance, in the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Lagos State, which was last amended in 2011, Section 273 prohibits  judges from entertaining any application for stay of proceedings until judgment is delivered in criminal cases.

While many defence lawyers have unsuccessfully challenged this provision of ACJL  as being unconstitutional, no pronouncement of any superior court has voided it.

 Section 273  of ACJL states, “Subject to the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, an application for stay of proceedings in respect of any criminal  matter brought before the high court and the magistrates’ court shall not be entertained until judgment is delivered.”

 Contrary to what obtains in many states, the  Lagos State Chief Judge is empowered to amend court rules to meet emerging challenges without recourse to the House of Assembly.

However, on his part, human rights lawyer, Mr. Bamidele Aturu, blamed the entire judicial system of the country for poor handling of corruption cases. He said without an urgent “shake-up”, the  “disgraceful state” of the nation’s judiciary would persist.

 He said, “I don’t think any court any court in Nigeria can try corruption as Nigerians expect. Our judicial system, if truth must be said,  is in a disgraceful state.  If state high courts try state officials the charade would be worse.

 Without a revolution, the joke will continue. There is need for urgent massive shake-up in the judiciary.  The rot is unbelievable and unimaginable.”