Justuce Emeka Nwite while delivering a ruling on the oral application by the EFCC’s counsel, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, held that such request could not be granted in the interest of fair hearing.

Justice Nwite agreed with Pinheiro that though a bench warrant was issued against the former governor, “fair hearing cannot be sacrificed on the altar of bench warrant.”

The judge held that it was not in doubt that the matter was originally adjourned until Jan. 21, 2025, before the anti-graft agency brought a motion for the abridgement of time to arraign Bello.

When the matter was called on Friday, although the former governor was in court, he was not represented by any lawyer.

The judge then asked the EFCC’s counsel why the defendant was not represented in court.

Pinheiro said the defendant would be in better position to answer the question.

However, when the ex-governor was asked why his lawyers were not in court, he said he was only informed of the sitting late Thursday night at about 11pm and so could not contact his lawyers.

Pinheiro then made an application for the arraignment of Mr Bello.

“What the law requires is the presence of the defendant, not the presence of his lawyers,” he argued, citing sections 271 and 396 of Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.

“I respectfully apply that the charge be ready to this defendant and his plea be taken.Then this matter can be adjourned,” he said.

But the judge said the instant case was peculiar.

“It is peculiar in the sense that we have already agreed on a date, which is in January.

“It would be a different thing if the defendant had no counsel,” the Judge said.

Pinheiro insisted that the defendant’s plea be taken, citing a previous case.

According to him, I rely on the authority of Joseph Vs. State, 2014, to the effect that what the court requires for arraignment is the physical presence of the defendant and not the presence of his counsel.
Delivering the ruling, Justice Nwite turned down Pinheiro’s application.
“I have listened to the submission of counsel to the prosecution and also heard from the defendant.
“It is not in dispute that on 30th of October, this matter came up. And it is not in dispute that the defendant was not in court.
“It is also not in dispute that the court ordered the parties to address the court on whether the defendant can be tried in absentia.
“And it is also not in dispute that the matter has been adjourned till 21st day of January, 2024 for ruling.
“It will be unfair if the matter is taken without the defendant’s counsel.
“It would be a different thing if the defendant had no counsel.

“Therefore, I am of the view that the defendant’s counsel be put on notice,” he ruled.

Justice Nwite consequently adjourned the matter until Dec. 13 for the hearing of the EFCC’s motion for the abridgement of time for the arraignment of the former governor.

The judge, who ordered that the hearing notice be issued and be served on the defendant’s lawyers, directed that the ex-governor should remain in the anti-graft agency’s custody pending the adjourned date.(NAN)