Justice Sylvanus Oriji of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), sitting at Maitama, Abuja, on Wednesday, reserved ruling on the preliminary objections raised by the immediate past governor of Taraba, Darius Dickson Ishaku and a former permanent secretary, Bureau for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs in the state, Bello Yero, to the time of judgment in the case.
The judge reserved the ruling after listening to arguments by parties on the defendants’ preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the court to hear the matter brought before it by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), on behalf of the Federal Government.
According to him, his decision to reserve ruling to the time of judgment was in line with the provision of Section 396(3) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA).
The former governor and Yero were arraigned before the court on a 15-count charge, bordering on criminal breach of trust, conspiracy and conversion of public funds to the tune of N27 billion.
They, however, pleaded not guilty to the charge, charge, marked FCT/HC/CR/792/2024, brought against them by the anti-corruption commission.
Before Justice Oriji reserved ruling on the defendants’ preliminary objections, counsels for the former governor, P.H Ogbole SAN and Adeola Adedipe SAN, counsel for Yero, had urged the court to uphold their objection to the jurisdiction of the court to hear the case.
In his argument, Ogbole told the court that it lacked both constitutional and territorial jurisdiction to hear the case, submitting that the charge before the court related to the finances of Taraba State government.
He argued that the exclusive power to investigate and prosecute anyone on issue relating to the state finances is vested in the state government.
According to him, even by its own admission, the prosecution in its affidavit against the preliminary objection admitted that part of the alleged offences committed by the defendants took place in Abuja.
On his part, Adedipe while urging the court to strike out the charge the case for lack of procedural and territorial jurisdiction, argued that the power of EFCC to prosecute for financial crimes over finances of a state is limited.
Citing the case of Shema v FRN, the senior advocate submitted that there is an anti-corruption commission in Taraba, adding that the Supreme Court had said where there exists such agency in the state, EFCC cannot take over.
He said the law empowered the Taraba State Anti-Corruption Commission to investigate and prosecute any offence relating to the state’s finance, which he said EFCC was now doing in the instant case.
He submitted that the charge before the court had to do with the finances of Taraba State and urges the court to take judicial notice of the fact that the law establishing the Taraba State Anti-Corruption Commission.
Responding, the prosecuting counsel, Rotimi Jacobs, SAN, urged the court to dismiss the defendants’ preliminary objection, asserting that the court has substantive jurisdiction to entertain the matter, while the defendants stated that it lacked territorial jurisdiction.
According to the prosecutor, the law the second defendant wanted the court to take judicial notice of was not gazetted, saying that the law provided places for the Taraba State governor and Speaker of the state House of Assembly to sign it but sid not sign.
Meanwhile, Justice Oriji has adjourned the case to January 21, 28 and 29, 2025 for hearing.
