Alex Enumah in Abuja
The trial of a Federal High Court judge, Justice Adeniyi Ademola, his wife, Olubowale and a senior lawyer, Joe Agi (SAN), for alleged gratification and criminal breach of trust was monday stalled over alleged threat to life by a prosecution witness, one Dr. Shaibu Teidi.
Justice Ademola, his wife, Olubowale and Agi were arraigned by the federal government on a 16-count charge of criminal conspiracy to offer and receive gratification in various ways contrary to section 8(1)(a) of the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission and Other Related Offences Act 2000.
At the resumed hearing yesterday, Jegede informed the court that one of his witnesses, Dr. Shaibu Teidi, had alleged threat to life and that the witness himself had reported the matter to the police in Maitama division in Abuja.
He said based on this, the police had taken Teidi to a secured destination, making his presence in court today (yesterday) not possible.
Jegede therefore urged the court to adjourn the case till Wednesday for the continuation of trial, adding that such would enable him to get his witnesses.
In a short ruling, trial judge, Jusutice Jude Okeke held that it was not ready to delve into the issue since it has been reported to the police.
Okeke ordered the Inspector General of Police to provide security for the prosecution, its witnesses, the defence team and all their witnesses.
The judge however, declined to adjourn till Wednesday as requested by the prosecution, noting that it was just one of its witnesses that alleged threat to his life.
He urged him to call on other witnesses.
Justice Okeke while berating the prosecution for adopting what he called delayed tactics in the trial, warned that the court would not hesitate to take drastic measures if the prosecution fails to present its witnesses at the next adjourned date.
Okeke said: “Apart from those reasons, the prosecution did not give any other reason. This is not acceptable to this court. The record of the court showed that the matter was adjourned till today for ruling and continuation of trial.
“Prosecution has other people listed as witnesses asides from Teidi and the prosecution has not said any of the other witnesses are being threatened. The implication is that apart from Teidi and a staff of GTBank, the prosecution is not prepared to proceed with the trial.
“This is unacceptable to the court. The court is ready to go ahead with the trial. It was on that the court granted an order of accelerated trial. Even today, because of this case, the court this morning adjourned 11 other cases so as to hear the witnesses.
“The action of the prosecution has made the court to act in vain, especially to the defendants and other litigants that their cases were originally listed.
“The application for adjournment is uncalled for, unreasonable and does not fall in line with the attitude of the present government as contained in ACJA. It is not good enough, it is not with the spirit of time.
“On account of the foregoing, the prosecution has not given a cogent reason for the grant of the application, but the court will indulge the prosecution by granting the adjournment.
“But instead of the Wednesday requested by the prosecution, I will adjourn till tomorrow, and if the prosecution fails again to produce its witness, the court will do the needful. To ‘before warned is to before harmed’.
The court later adjourned till today instead of tomorrow which the prosecution requested for.
Earlier, counsel to Ademola, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN) had objected to the information being given by the prosecution on the grounds that such should have been communicated to him first.
Ikpeazu and counsel to the other defendants submitted that the prosecution should apply to withdraw the charge if it has no witness to bring.
According to them, the prosecution had listed 14 witnesses out of which they have only called six.
They stated that by the allegation, since only Teidi was threatened, the prosecution should therefore go ahead and call other witnesses who are not threatened to come and give evidence in the matter.
They further submitted that the pendency of the suit is hampering the dispensation of the duty of the first defendant who is a serving judge and the second defendant who is the current Head of Service of Lagos State.
The defence counsel further submitted that the application for adjournment is not in tandem with the spirit of Administration of Criminal Justice Act which provides for speedy dispensation of justice.
They therefore urged the court to dismiss the application.
