The Federal High Court in Abuja has rejected the request made by a former governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello, that his order of arrest should be discharged.
The court rejected the request on Tuesday after Bello who was absent at his arraignment said he is ready to make an appearance but he is afraid of being arrested.
Bello who is facing a charge of money laundering said this through a team of lawyers who addressed the court on his behalf, having earlier briefed them.
One of the members of Bello’s legal team, Adeola Adedipe (SAN) informed the court of his client’s fear of making an appearance in court.
“The defendant wants to come to court but he is afraid that there is an order of arrest hanging on his head,” Adedipe stated.
He thereafter urged the court to withdraw the exparte order of arrest it earlier issued against Bello.
Adedipe argued that at the time the order of arrest was issued, the charge had not been served on the former governor as required by the law.
According to Adedipe, it was only at the resumed proceedings on Tuesday that the court okayed substituted service of the charge on Bello through his legal team.
“As at the time the warrant was issued, the order for substituted service had not been made. That order was just made this morning,” he said.
“As such, a warrant of arrest should not be hanging on his neck when we leave this court.”
Bello is currently facing a 19-count charge of money laundering which the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) filed against him.
Bello, through his lawyer, Adedipe, however, maintained that the EFCC is an illegal organization.
The former governor based his argument on section 12 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, which required the various Houses of Assembly of states to ratify the Act before it could become operative.
“This is a very serious matter that borders on the constitution and the tenets of federalism. It has to be resolved because as it stands, the EFCC is an illegal organization,” Adedipe said.
EFCC’s lawyer, Kemi Pinheiro (SAN) asked the court to refuse the application.
Pinheiro stated that the warrant of arrest should not be withdrawn until the defendant makes himself available for his trial.
“The defendant cannot stay in hiding and be filing numerous applications. He cannot ask for the arrest order to be vacated until and when the defendant is present in court for his arraignment. He cannot be heard on that applied application,” Pinheiro said.
“The main issue should be ascertaining the whereabouts of the defendant. All these applications he is filing are nothing but dilatory tactics intended to delay his arraignment and frustrate the proceedings.
“If he wants the order of arrest to be discharged, let him come here and make the application.
“Our position is that the defendant should be denied the right of being heard, until he is physically present before this court.”
