Abuja Trial: Police, 23 INEC staff know fate May 12

Twenty three officials of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) charged by the Federal Government over allegation of receiving the sum of N360 million as bribe from the Rivers State Government to influence the outcome of the December 10, 2016, rerun election in the state, will on May 12, know whether or not their trial will take place in Abuja.

The officials were to enter plea on a 7-count charge on March 14, but the arraignment could not hold due to an application filed by their counsel challenging jurisdiction of the court to conduct the trial in Abuja instead of Port-Harcourt.

When the trial resumed, counsel to the 1st to 20th defendants, Ahmed Raji SAN argued and adopted the application he filed pursuant to Section 6 of the 1999 Constitution; Section 45(a) of Federal High Court Act; Sections 93, 386 of Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015.

Specifically, Raji’s application urged the court to decline hearing of the charge on grounds of territorial jurisdiction and seeking, “in essence striking out the charge” or in the alternative, “an order transferring the charge to Port-Harcourt Division of the Federal High Court.

Adumbrating on his application, Raji observed that the exhibits of the complainant marked annextures A,B,C and D, attached to the counter affidavit of the police, and deposed to by one Numa Ganawo Wande, a litigation officer in the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation were mere photographs of dead police officers and weapons.

Raji argued that in accordance with the provisions of Section 84 of the Evidence Act, the exhibits are “inadmissible in law”.

He insisted that a litigation officer in the AGF’s office, “is not in a better position to depose to what transpired in Port-Harcourt.

“He is here in Maitama, and is deposing to an affidavit on events that happened in Port-Harcourt.

“My Lord, allowing this, will amount to setting a dangerous precedent whereby pictures of alleged crimes will be gathered from different parts of the country and used by the complainant for prosecution. 

“The litigation officer is not the proper person who can bring the affidavit and attachments to court without establishing a link in one way or the other, Raji stated.

“My Lord, my humble submission therefore is that the complainant has not placed any credible evidence showing insecurity in Port-Harcourt to warrant trial of the defendants in Abuja.

He therefore insisted that the defendants should face trial in Port-Harcourt, where the alleged offences were said to have taken place rather than Abuja.

Counsel to the 21st and 23rd defendants, U.O Ukairo, holding brief of Patrick Ikwueto SAN, as well as  similarly filed same application E.A Nwauwa, representing the 22nd defendant all adopted the submissions of Raji, in seeking transfer of the trial to Port-Harcourt.

They posited that Section 93(3) of ACJA is a condition precedent in filing a charge, insisting that the burden is on the prosecution to prove state of insecurity in Port-Harcourt, which they stated has not been proved.

However, in opposition to the applications of the defendants, prosecution counsel, Aliyu Alilu told court to discountenance their submissions for lacking in merit.

He described as “misconception” the statement of Raji challenging the validity of the counter affidavit deposed to by the litigation officer in the office of the AGF.

Alilu clarified the issue by telling the court that the deponent, Numa Ganawo Wande got his information from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Dan Okoro, who headed the IGP’s Special Investigation Team on the electoral crisis before, during and after the legislative re-run election in Rivers state on December 10, 2016.

Contrary to the position of the defendants, the prosecution argued that based on Section 174(2) of the 1999 Constitution, “Challenging the validity of the charge is after plea has been taken.

However, after listening to counsel, trial judge Justice John Tsoho fixed May 12, for ruling.

Recall It was alleged that aside the  N360m bribe, N111million and N300,000 were recovered from the 23 electoral officers.

Each electoral officer, the Federal Government claimed, got N15m, while the three senior electoral officers for the senatorial zones received an extra N5m each which brought the total to N360m. END.Abuja trial: Police, 23 INEC staff know fate May 12