Former Director-General of the Nigerian Stock Exchange (NSE), Ndi Okereke-Onyuike, yesterday justified her continued absence from the hearing of a criminal case against her and some others by the Lagos State Government.
She told the court, which queried her continued absence from court since the case was first mentioned earlier this year, that her presence was immaterial at the current stage of the case.
The state had, in July, filed two charges against Okereke-Onyuike and seven others, accusing them of stealing about N3. 3billion. Named in the charges are Alhaji Lance Musa Elakama, a former senior official of the NSE, and Uzoma Henry Onyekuru. Five companies – Creative Financial Services Limited, Mining System Limited, OPDC Properties Limited, OAK Business and Finance Company Limited and Kingdom Securities and Finance Company Limited – are also named.
The accused are facing charges of conspiracy and stealing, contrary to Sections 516 and 390 (7) of the Criminal Code of Lagos State Cap C17, Vol. 2 Laws of Lagos State 2003.
Justice Christopher Balogun, yesterday directed the parties to address him on whether or not the presence of the accused was necessary while the court was considering their applications challenging the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case and the competence of the charges.
Lead defence counsel Robert Clarke (SAN) contended that the accused persons’ presence in court was unnecessary since the trial was yet to begin.
He argued that under Section 208 of the state’s Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL), 2007 (as amended in 2011), an accused person’s presence is only required during trial.
Relying on Appeal Court’s decisions in the cases of Gani Fawehinmi vs the Attorney-General of Lagos, reported in 1989 3 NWLR Part 112 at page 707, and the case of Ezezi and Others vs the State, Clarke argued that the accused persons’ presence before the beginning of trial was unnecessary.
“Based on both decisions, it is a settled law that it is absolutely unnecessary for the accused to be in court for the purpose of determining their applications challenging the charge and seeking to quash it,” he said.
Clarke argued that the application to quash a charge does not amount to a trial, but one which challenges whether there should be a trial. He assured that his clients would be in court at the commencement of trial.
Lead prosecution counsel Lawal Pedro (SAN) agreed with Clarke’s submission, noting that but for the accused persons’ preliminary objection, he would have, relying on the provision of Section 56 of the ACJL, applied that a bench warrant be issued on the accused. He urged the court to first determine the accused persons’ preliminary objection before seeking their attendance.
Justice Balogun drew the lawyers’ attention to the recent Court of Appeal’s decision in the case of Alintah vs the state, reported in 2010 6 NWLR part 1191 at page 508 and directed them to address his court on the Appeal Court’s decision on that case in relation to whether or not the accused persons’ presence was required before trial begins.
The judge adjourned till December 9 for the adoption of the parties’ written addresses. A date would then be fixed for hearing.
Comments