The commencement of the trial of a former Minister of Niger Delta, Godsday Orubebe, was again stalled on Thursday following a proposal by the Federal Government to amend the four counts of N70m bribery and false assets declaration preferred against him.
It would be recalled that the prosecution had, on the 9th of this month, requested for two weeks to prepare its witnesses when asked to commence the trial shortly after the accused pleaded not guilty to the four counts.
The Danladi Umar-led Code of Conduct Tribunal then adjourned till Thursday for the commencement of trial. But on Thursday, the prosecution led by Mr. Peter Danladi, rather than call its first witness, proposed to orally amend counts two, three and four, an application which was opposed by the defence lawyer, Mr. Selekowei Larry SAN.
Danladi while applying for the amendment of the charges cited section 216 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, which he said allowed the prosecution to amend or alter the charges it filed at any time before judgment was delivered.
According to him, “The matter was adjourned till today for hearing. But before we proceed, we are applying to amend counts two, three and four.
“The applications is brought pursuant to section 216 of the ACJ Act and pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of this honourable tribunal.”
Just when the prosecuting counsel was about to give details of his proposed amendment, Larry raised an objection, arguing that it could only be done through motion on notice and not orally.
He said, “This is serious business. You can’t just jump up and say you want to amend the charges. You have to notify us about what you want to do. You have to do it through motion on notice. You cannot come and take us by surprise. We have to know what you are doing.
“This is a court of record. Whatever they want to do let them do it properly by way of motion on notice.”
Responding, the prosecution counsel noted that the use of the word, “anytime” in section 216 of the ACJ Act showed that an application for amendment of charges by prosecution could be done orally.
However, the CCT Chairman agreed that the prosecution had the right to amend the charges as it wished, but maintained that it needed to put the defence on notice.
This led Danladi to ask for two weeks to file the necessary processes for the amendment.
But tribunal chairman maintained that since the year was already winding up, the case would only be entertained in January. The matter was thus adjourned till January 27, 2016.
Comments