Bribery: Lawan’s application for stay of proceedings frivolous –ICPC

[Mirror]

The Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission, ICPC, yesterday, told a Federal Capital Territory, FCT, high court that the application brought by former Chairman of the House of Representatives' Ad hoc Committee on Fuel Subsidy Regime, Hon. Farouk Lawan and his Secretary, Mr. Boniface Emenalo, is "frivolous, vexatious and a design to stall trial of the accused persons."

Counsel to the ICPC, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, made this submission in response to an application by Lawan seeking to stay proceedings in their ongoing trial, pending the determination of an appeal before the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal.

In his argument in favour of the accused persons' motion on notice for stay dated June 7, Mr. Rickey Tarfa, SAN, contended that; "where stay of proceedings is not granted in the circumstances of this case, the right sought to be protected by the accused persons, may be rendered null and void."

He argued further that the pending appeal filed on June 6, raises a fundamental issue of the court's jurisdiction and competence to hear and determine the seven-count charge of "conspiracy and corruption" preferred against the accused. Hence, the compelling need for the court to stay proceedings pending conclusion of appeal.

It was further demonstrated, as basis for persuasion, the fact that, "the continuation of this case while the appeal is pending, will render the outcome of appeal nugatory should the Court of Appeal decide the appeal in the accused/applicants' favour.

"The continuation of proceedings in this suit while the appeal is pending is capable of overreaching whatever decision the Court of Appeal may reach in the final determination since the appeal is challenging the ruling of the trial court, holding that it has jurisdiction to hear and determine the charge," accused argued.

In the face of the foregoing, therefore, Lawan urged the court to allow the motion as according to them, "the counteraffidavit by the prosecution, does not controvert the special circumstance relied upon for the court to grant the application."

In opposition to the accused/ap p l i c a n t s ' plea for stay, however, Awomolo observed that stay of proceedings was a very "grave, serious and fundamental" interruption of the right of the prosecution to prove the alleged criminal conduct of Lawan and Emenalo.

Awomolo added that trial courts, in circumstances such as this, were enjoined not to "impose a stay of proceedings, unless the applicant has shown beyond reasonable doubt that the trial ought not to continue, particularly, it it's an application based on an interlocutory appeal."

According to the prosecution, the instant application "has failed to show special and exceptional circumstances for a stay of proceedings," adding that "it is the duty of the applicant to demonstrate this in the affidavit in support of the application."

More importantly, the ICPC maintained that; "There is nothing in support of the motion to suggest that the accused persons will suffer any prejudice if the application is refused," more so that the "applicants are not in custody."

"Applicants have not shown that the res (subject matter) will be destroyed, if this application is refused; they have to show how the res will be adversely affected."

To this end, the court was invited to dismiss the application and order accelerated hearing.

Lawan and Emenalo, are being prosecuted by the ICPC for allegedly collecting $620, 000 as bribe from the Chairman of Zenon Oil and Gas, Mr. Femi Otedola, ostensibly to delete the names of the latter's companies (Zenon Petroleum and Gas as well as Synopsis Enterprises Limited), from the list of companies allegedly found to have defrauded the Federal Government of billions of naira.

The offence is contrary to section 26 (1) (c) of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other-Related Offences Act, 2000, and punishable under section 8 (1) of the same Act."

Their earlier attempts – via a preliminary objection – to have the trial court quash the charge against them failed, as trial judge, Justice Mudashiru Oniyangi, held that the accused persons had a case to answer, against the backdrop of the proof of evidence, which established a prima facie evidence against them, to warrant their being put to trial.

On Lawan's argument that the court lacked the jurisdiction to try him, Oniyangi said the court had the inherent jurisdiction to hear the suit even as he maintained, without equivocation, that section 185 of the ICPC Act, which the defence relied heavily on, did not require the prosecution to attach to proof of evidence, all witness' statements.

Oniyangi had held inter alia: "The position of Section 185, to me, is as clear as crystal. It does not suggest that written statements of all witnesses; it is proof of evidence. "I, therefore, hold that the requirement of section 185 is proof of evidence, not written statement of witnesses.

The case is adjourned till July 10, for ruling on application to stay proceedings.

National Mirror

[Folami David]

Bribery is just something we've been trying so hard to do away with in this country and it is very sad. That has to change.