By Francesca Hangeior

Former Kogi governor Yahaya Bello has asked the Federal High Court, Abuja, to adjourn, indefinitely, the ongoing case instituted against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission(EFCC).

He also asked the court to vacate its arrest order on him, pending the determination of an appeal he filed at the Court of Appeal, Abuja.

Bello’s demands are contained in a letter written by Musa Yakubu, his Counsel, who is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria(SAN).

The letter was dated July 12 and addressed to the trial Judge, Justice Emeka Nwite, ahead of Bello’s arraignment scheduled for Wednesday, July 17.

Bello is being tried for allegedly laundering N80 billion.
But, in his appeal against his trial, Bello has expressed fears over his fate if the case is left to proceed.

In the Appellate case with file no. CA/ABJ/CR/535/2024, Bello is seeking that the Warrant of Arrest he says was illegally issued against him on April 17, 2024, be set aside.

He also wants a return of the case file to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, for re-assignment to another Judge.

The Appeal was filed against the decisions of the trial Federal High Court, Abuja, in Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/98/2024.

The former governor is also seeking an order of the Appeal Court setting aside service of the EFCC Charge on him by substituted means, including the entire proceedings already conducted in the case.

In the letter, Bello requested that further proceedings in the charge be adjourned sine die, pending the determination of the appeal currently pending at the Court of Appeal, Abuja.

The letter, a copy of which was sent to the National Judicial Council (NJC), and Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, was in response to a letter to Justice Nwite, by the EFCC, dated July 8, 2024 and filed on the July 10, 2024.

In the said letter, the EFCC requested for a variation of the earlier warrant of arrest issued against Bello, additionally requesting that the various security agencies be specifically directed to carry out the earlier arrest.

Responding to the EFCC’s application, Bello’s counsel urged the Court to decline the request and await the outcome of the appeal pending at the Court of Appeal over the said warrant of arrest and other related pronouncements of the trial Court.

Bello’s counsel made reference to the position of the law as contained in Order 4 Rule 11(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021 and the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Vab Petroleum INC V. Momah (Supra), and a litany of other cases.

“We respectfully urge the Court to set aside and expunge from its records, the proceedings of the 27th June, 2024, including any ruling, order or directive carried out in the face of the defendant’s appeal entered on the 24th of May, 2024,” he said.

He asked the court to “adjourn further proceedings in this charge sine die, pending the determination of Appeal No: CA/ABJ/CR/536/2024 entered by the defendant, and pending at the Court of Appeal, Abuja”.

The letter read in part: “The defendant to the Charge had, on the 17th of May, 2024, filed a notice of appeal against the ruling of this Court made on the 10th of May, 2024 refusing to discharge the warrant of arrest issued against the defendant.

“The defendant, pursuant to the said notice of appeal, compiled and transmitted record of appeal to the Court of Appeal and entered on the 24th of May, 2024, Appeal No: CA/ABJ/CR/536/2024.

“Notwithstanding the foregoing, the complainant has now filed the above referenced application seeking for the amendment of the warrant of arrest which was hitherto directed to the complainant only, to have it extended to the heads of other security and law enforcement agencies listed in the prosecuting Counsel’s letter.

“The court cannot countenance the application or do anything with respect to the aforesaid warrant of arrest or conduct further proceedings in this charge in view of the provisions of Order 4 Rule 11(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021 which is to the effect that: ‘After an appeal has been entered and until it has been finally disposed of, the Court shall be seized of the whole of the proceedings as between the parties thereto.
“Except as may be otherwise provided in these rules, every application therein shall be made to the court and not to the lower court”.