Faruk Lawan To Face Trial..Court Rules

AN Abuja High Court on Friday told the Chairman and Secretary of the House of Representatives Ad hoc Committee on Subsidy Probe, Farouk Lawan and Emenalo Boniface, that they have a case to answer in the alleged $620,000 bribery charge preferred against them.

The Federal Government had on February 1 filed a seven-count charge against the two men, bordering on collection of $620,000 bribe from an oil magnate, Mr. Femi Otedola, in order to doctor the report of the committee in favour of Zenon Oil and Gas.

After pleading not guilty, the accused persons, through their counsel, Ricky Tarfa (SAN), applied to the court praying it to quash the charge. They premised their application on the grounds that the prosecution did not attach the written statement of the witnesses to the charge; that the charge did not establish a prima facie case against them and that the charge was an abuse of court process.

But delivering ruling on the application, Justice Mudashiru Oniyangi held that going by Section 185(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the prosecution need not attach the witness statement, and that the only process provided for to be attached is the proof of evidence.

He added that the non-attachment of the witness’s statement does not make the charge incompetent.

“Even though I agree that the witness’s statement is not attached, I disagree that its non-attachment vitiates the charge. Where a statute provides for the manner in which a process should be filed, such manner must be followed. Applicant’s counsel has a misconception of Section 185( b). On that note, I hold that the court has jurisdiction to entertain, hear and determine the suit,” he said.

On the argument that no prima facie case has been established against the accused persons, the court held that “a prima facie case arises once there are circumstances that can justify that an accused person has committed an offence and he should be put on trial. Once there is evidence that will suggest that the accused have an explanation to make to the court on a matter, then there is a prima facie case.”

Justice Oniyangi further held that having read the proof of evidence and the written statements of the accused persons, it was clear that a prima facie case had been established against them which they would need to answer.

“The prosecution has presented sufficient materials before the court to warrant the grant of the leave to prefer charges against the accused persons,” he said.

Ruling on the third ground of abuse of court process, the trial judge held that there were sufficient materials before him to warrant the grant of the leave to prefer charges against the two accused persons.

He said, “The court cannot turn around here to say the materials brought by the prosecution constitute an abuse of court process. The complaints of the applicants have no legal basis; the charge brought by the applicants does not amount to abuse of court process.”

Justice Oniyangi, with the consent of the parties, adjourned till June 19 for hearing and ordered that the bail of the accused persons should continue.

When asked whether he would appeal the ruling, Ricky Tarfa told journalists after the court session that he would take further instruction from his clients on what to do.