(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQgfaIX4laPoNfEK2R473Zc69lwiohq6Z0sx5H3vC49xQBH5xMj)
Son of late Chief Gani Fawehinmi, Mohammed Fawehinmi, has backed the appointment of Mr festus keyamo by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission to prosecute Mr. Dimeji Bankole, and his deputy, Mallam Usman Nafada, on the allegation that they illegally obtained loan on behalf of the legislative for personal use.
He also emphasized that EFCC has the power to prosecute the accused persons, as against what bankole and his legal counsel claimed.
"Mr. Festus Keyamo, having been appointed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission can prosecute Bankole. He falls within the ambit of the legal practitioners contained in the prescription of the decision in FRN v Osahon (supra).
"I respectfully submit that the EFCC has full powers to prosecute the former Speaker, his deputy and all officers who used their respective offices to secure personal loans to the tune of N38bn thereby enriching themselves," Fawehinmi said in the statement.
He added that Section 13(2)(a) of EFCC Act 2004 empowered the anti-graft-agency to represent the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice of the Federation and the Inspector-General of Police in prosecuting offenders.
Whatever the motive of Mohammed Fawehinmi's support for the prosecutorial role of Festus Keyamo in Dimeji Bankole issue, one may instinctively (and rightly) say his views are parti pris, given that Festus Keyamo was once his father's protege. That said, in relation to the issue as to whether trial should be halted as a result of the absence of Attorney General's consent, it is doubtful whether an Attorney General - charged with the responsibility of ensuring justice is neither delayed nor denied - would have issued a plea of nolle prosequi, particularly in the light of public outcry. Of course an Attorney General has the right to intervene and enter a plea of nolle prosequi, however, s/he does so on grounds of interest of justice. Futher, entering a plea of nolle prosequi is not a acquittal, it is usually to stay proceedings. Whether one is Bankole's supporter or weighs his deeds in grudging scales, the accused must be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Those who say Bankole should be jailed are hostile to the notion of justice, and those seeking to halt his trial have parted company with reality. Emmanuel Opone
Emmanuel Opone, you've written well. Until proven guilty, Dimeji Bankole is innocent. Mohammed Fawehinmi has right to his opinion and Festus Keyamo is doing his job. Remember!
May I start by commending Emmanuel Opone's intellegent and measured opinion on this issue.
There are two pertinent questions to be asked: one legal, and the other political. First: legally, is there prima facie evidence that Dimeji Bankole purloined over 10 billion naira? if the answer to that question is in affirmation, then the question of Attorney General's consent becames sudsidiary. Politically, how was it that such an amount was at the disposal of one if individual? I am concerned at this stage with the latter question, since we must all bear the collective guilt for not letting our leaders surmount the gauntlet of accountability.
Manny Lutta
l hope the EFCC will get to the root of this case, so that Nigerians will have a clear picture of what actually happened to the N10billion loan, which Bankole and Nafada were alleged to have converted to personal use.
Justice must prevail!
The aphorism of Athena must not ring hollow : "Wrong must not win by technicalities".
The issue of attorney general's consent in prosecuting dimeji and co is, frankly, diverting attention from the real merit of the case.