$620,000 Bribe: Lawan, Emenalo Must Face Trial, Rules Court

Hon. Farouk Lawan

An Abuja High Court friday dismissed an application by the chairman and the secretary of the House of Representatives ad hoc committee on subsidy probe, Farouk Lawan and  Emenalo Boniface respectively, to quash the charges of receiving $620,000 from businessman, Femi Otedola to influence the report of the committee in favour of Zenon Oil and Gas Limited. Justice Mudashiru Oniyangi held that the two accused persons had a case to answer in the alleged $620,000 bribery charge.

Justice Oniyangi held that going by Section 185 (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the prosecution needed not attach the witnesses’ statements adding that the only process provided for to be attached was the proof of evidence. He added that non- attachment of the witnesses’ statements does not make the charge incompetent.

His Lordship said: “Even though I agree that the witness statement is not attached but I disagree that its non-attachment vitiates the charge. Where a statute provides for the manner in which a process should be filed, such manner must be followed; applicant’s counsel has a misconception of Section 185 (b).

“On that note, I hold that the court has jurisdiction to entertain, hear and determine the suit.”

On the argument that no prima facie case had been established against the accused persons, the court held that “a prima facie case arises once there are circumstances that can justify that an accused person have committed an offence and he should be put on trial.

“Once there is evidence that will suggest that the accused has an explanation to make to the court on a matter, then there is a prima facie case.”

Justice Oniyangi further held that having read the proof of evidence and the written statements of the accused persons, it was clear that a prima facie case had been established against them which they need to answer.

“The prosecution has presented sufficient materials before the court to warrant the grant of the leave to prefer charges against the accused persons,” he added.

Ruling on the submission that the case was an abuse of court process, the trial judge held that there were sufficient materials before him to warrant the grant of the leave to prefer charges against the two accused persons.

He said: “The court cannot turn around here to say the materials brought by the prosecution constitute an abuse of court process.

“The complaints of the applicants have no legal bases; the charge brought by the applicant does not amount to an abuse of court process.”