A Federal High Court in Abuja Wednesday fixed April 28 for the commencement of trial in the case against businessman, Raymond Dokpesi and his company, Daar Investment and Holdings Limited.
They were arraigned before the court on February 17 on a six count charge bordering on alleged procurement fraud and breach of public trust to the tune of N2.1 billion.
They were said to have received N2.1billion from the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA) between October 2014 and March 2015, which was diverted to fund the presidential campaign of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), an act said to be a breach of provisions of the Public Procurement Act, Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act.
Justice James Tsoho fixed the date Wednesday after lawyers to parties agreed to return on April 28 following their inability to agree on the need to allow the commencement of trial.
When the case was called, lawyer to Dokpesi and his company, Wole Olanipekun (SAN) sought clarification from the judge on the position of the case in view of media reports, which quoted the judge as saying the case was assigned to him in error and that it had been sent back to the earlier trial judge.
Justice Tsoho explained that although he learnt the case and other similar ones were sent to his court in error, he has now been allowed to continue to hear the Dokpesi case because “steps have been taken.”
He said unlike the one involving former Head of Civil Service of the Federation, Steven Oronsaye, who had not been re-arraigned before him, steps have been taken in the Dokpesi case, where the defendants have been re-arraigned.
Shortly after the judge’s explanation, prosecution lawyer, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) told the court he was ready for trial and that his first witness was in court. As he made move to invite the witness, Olanipekun sprang up, and queried the legitimacy of the additional proof of evidence just filed by the prosecution.
He said the bundle of documents was not served on him on time and that it was not properly filed before the court because the prosecution did not first obtain the court’s permission to file additional proof.
Olanipekun also complained about the quality of the documents, which were mainly written statements of additional witnesses to be called by the prosecution. He noted that copies of the states in the proof served on him were not legible.
Responding, Jacobs insisted that the additional proof of evidence was properly filed as the prosecution, under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 is not required to first obtain the court’s permission before filing proof.
“The ACJA, in section 379 and 380 have made provisions as to the filing of proof of evidence. In Section 379(2) the prosecution is given the discretion to file additional proof at any time before judgment, without constraints or inhibition. No leave is required
“This provision is in line with the decision of the Supreme Court in Nguru and the State: 2007 3 NWLR part 771 page 304. The provision requires the prosecution to merely inform the court about the filing of the proof of evidence, but not to first seek the court’s leave,” Jacobs said.
He however agreed to provide Olanipekun with more legible copies of the documents as requested.
The judge, at that point asked parties to agree on a convenient date for the commencement of trial. They later agreed to return on April 28.
No comments:
Post a Comment