$620,000 bribe: Lawan asks court to stay proceedings

Former Chairman of the House of Representatives’ Adhoc Committee on Fuel Subsidy Regime, Hon. Farouk Lawan, has filed a motion on notice before a Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court to stay proceedings on his ongoing trial, which resumes today. Lawan and secretary of the Ad-hoc committee, Mr. Boniface Emenalo, are being prosecuted by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (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 firms 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. However, their efforts to have the court quash the seven-count charge preferred against them by the anti-graft agency failed on May 10, when 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. On Lawan’s argument that the court lacked the jurisdiction to try him, Justice Oniyangi said the court had the inherent jurisdiction to hear the suit, even as he added that Section 185 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), which the defence relied heavily on, did not require the prosecution to attach to proof of evidence, all witness’ statements. The judge said: “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. “To me, once there is evidence that will suggest to the court that the accused has some questions to answer in the proof of evidence, then there is a prima facie case. “I am left with no doubt that a prima facie case has been established by the prosecution against the accused, having regard to the proof of evidence and witness statement.” Consequent upon the ruling, the lawmaker filed a notice of appeal before the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal where he is praying the appellate court to set aside the verdict ruling on the ground that “the honourable trial judge erred in law” when he assumed jurisdiction over the case. Lawan is also contending that “the honourable trial judge erred in law when he held that the requirements of section 185 (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) and order 3 rules (1) and (2) (a) and (b)…were complied with by the prosecution in preferring the charge and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice.”