Controversial leader of the Action Congress of Nigeria and one-time Lagos State Governor, Mr. Bola Tinubu, has told the Code of Conduct Tribunal, an appellate anti-graft court in Nigeria, that he charges of money laundering, operation of sixteen bank accounts and non-declaration of assets, against him were based on “hearsay” and entirely “speculative”.
Mr. Tinubu, who was at the sitting of the powerful tribunal in Abuja, accompanied by party lieutenants like Governor Raji Babatunde Fashola of Lagos, Governor Kayode Fayemi of Ekiti State and Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola of Osun State, challenging the jurisdiction of judges, said that the serious charges were not established prima-facie by the Code of Conduct Bureau, thus claiming that he had been grossly violated contrary to Sections 115, 116 and 117 of the Evidence Act in view of the fact that prosecution failed to disclose Tinubu’s accusers. 28 executives of Osun State ACN were intercepted and arrested by security operatives at Lokoja while travelling to Abuja to stage a circus show around the venue of the trial. They demanded an apology for their alleged unlawful detention. National Publicity Secretary, Lai Mohammed, alleged growing harassment of the opposition.
Tinubu, who party mouth “rule of law or egalitarian” refrain did what no common man would do in Nigeria: he refused to enter the dock. He refusal to be docked was predicated on the argument advanced by his lead counsel, Mr Wole Olanipekun, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN)
When the trial resumed, Tinubu refused to enter the dock on the strength of his application challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunal. Unlike the previous session of September 21, 2011 when he was docked for three hours, his counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), leading other Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) objected to the invitation by the tribunal Chairman, Justice Umar Yakubu for Tinubu to enter the dock. Citing legal authorities to support his position, Olanipekun argued that until his client was arraigned before the court, he cannot be put in the dock.
“My lord, with due respect, I will be objecting to the request by the accused to enter the dock. Was it right for the court to command an accused person to go into the dock when he has not been arraigned? Besides, he is challenging the competence of the charges. The objection is on the legality or validity of the charge.”
He referred the court to the case of Edet Vs state (2008) 14 NWLR part 1106 at page 52 to argued further that the defendant does not even need to be in court before his application challenging the jurisdiction of the court and the competence of the charges would be heard.
Prosecution counsel, Dr. Alex Izinyon (SAN), argued that the fact that the accused person was presently at the tribunal does not translate to his presence in court until he was arraigned and his plea is taken. He conceded to the position of Olanipekun that the accused need not be in court before his application challenging its jurisdiction of the court could be argued. “But when he has not taken his plea, but is in court, he must be in the dock to show his presence in court.
But going into the fulcrum of his objection, Olanipekun argued that the charges as presently constituted are nebulous and empty as it does not disclose any prima facie case against the accused person. It was also his case that the Code of Conduct Bureau breached the condition precedent principle when it refused to invite his client to its office to hear from him before preferring charges against him. On this leg of submission, Olanipekun tendered newspaper publications to show that the tribunal had extended similar invitations to other ex-governors, but deliberately shut his client out, adding that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
“What the Bureau has done is like putting something on nothing. Neither the Bureau nor the Chairman has invited the accused person in relation to the three-count charge as stipulated in Section 3 of the Code of Conduct Act.
“The Bureau must first and foremost call the accused. The chairman of the Bureau said they invited other ex-governors. Now the question is why not extend a similar invitation to the accused person. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.” Attacking the competence of the charges, Olanipekun contended that the content was speculative and amounted to hearsay, going by the provisions of sections 115, 116 and 117 of the Evidence Act, as the prosecution did not disclose the name of the informant.
Another leg of the objection was that it was an abuse of court processes as a similar case with same subject mater initiated against the accused person was still subsisting at the Court of Appeal. He dismissed the contention of the prosecution that the case had been withdrawn, adding that withdrawal of the charges has to be formal with the pronouncement of the court and not a mere letter of withdrawal as the one paraded by the prosecution.
It was his final leg of argument that the court lacks the territorial jurisdiction to hear the case in Abuja, saying the appropriate venue is Lagos where the alleged offence was committed.
“In a criminal trial, the law is that the court must sit at the a place where the alleged offence was committed. There is no law that says the tribunal must sit in Abuja over the matter.” Olanipekun accordingly urged the court to decline its jurisdiction to proceed with the matter and to quash all the three-count charges against Tinubu. Opposing, Dr. Izinyon urged the tribunal to throw out the objections and proceed with the trial. Izinyon argued that the charge has established a prima facie case against the accused person and was competent before the court.
Specifically, he said under section 17 of the Code of Conduct Act, a nominee, trustee or any agent of a public officer may be deemed to have committed an offence, adding that at this stage, it is too premature to say that the charges were defective.” Meanwhile, the 28 executives of the ACN who were arrested on Tuesday night by the Kogi State police command, have urged the state Police Commissioner, Amanana Abasakanga to apologise for their alleged unlawful detention or face the wrath of the law.
Explaining their ordeal to newsmen at the party secretariat in Lokoja yesterday, the spokesman of the group , who is also the Vice-Chairman of ACN in Osun State, Chief Shola Oyewumi, said they were arrested at about 6.41 pm at the Murtala Muhammad Bridge, Jamata while going to Abuja to attend a crucial meeting. He said they were delayed for over four hours by the police at the bridge before theywere moved to their station where they laid on bare floor like common criminals before they were released the following morning
While embarking on the journey to Abuja yesterday morning, he said the police intercepted their vehicle again and delayed them for several hours before they were eventually left off the hook. Oyewunmi who expressed worry why the Police have to single out their vehicle for arrest even though they conducted a search on both the vehicle and the occupants without finding anything unlawful said, this was a clear case of infringement on their fundamental rights.
He said they were travellig in a marked Osun State Government vehicle which carries the vehicle plate number of the Goverment House , namely OSGH 192, yet, the police still went ahead and detained them.
Meanwhile, Alhaji Mohammed, in a statement on Wednesday said the arrest which should be condemned by all Nigerians, fits the emerging pattern of a police clampdown on the ACN and its supporters. It said the arrested members were taken from one police station to another apparently just to frustrate and delay them since they could not be reasonably charged with any offence other than being ACN supporters. ACN recalled that the police also arrested the party’s supporters on their way to Abuja to show support for the party’s leader when he first appeared in court last month.
‘’When this is taken along with the recent harassment of journalists at The Nation as well as the arrest and trial of our party chairman in Jigawa State, Dr. Abubakar Fulata, for ‘slandering’ the state governor by saying he has no requisite qualifications to be governor, one can see an orchestrated and well-coordinated attempt to suppress the opposition in the country, with the police as the arrowhead.