1 week ago
27
By Lukman Olabiyi
Music producer Ezekiel Onyedikachi, popularly known as EeZee Tee, on Monday affirmed his readiness to prove his innocence in the fraudulent conversion charge filed against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
Onyedikachi gave the assurance through his lawyer, Dr Monday Ubani, SAN, when the matter came up for hearing before a Federal High Court in Lagos.
When the case was called, Ubani announced his appearance for the defendant, while Mr Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN) appeared for the prosecution.
Ubani then informed the court that he had filed two separate preliminary objections to the charge but would be withdrawing them.
When the presiding judge, Justice Alexander Owoeye, inquired about the whereabouts of the defendant, Ubani told the court that he had received a call from the defendant, who said he had been involved in a terrible accident that morning.
He, however, assured the court that his client would be available at the next date to take his plea and prove his innocence.
When Ubani sought to move his preliminary objection to the charge, the court declined on the grounds that he could not be heard until the defendant appeared before the court.
Justice Owoeye held that the court had not assumed jurisdiction over the case, as the plea of the defendant had not been taken.
On his part, the prosecutor, citing provisions of sections 396(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, as well as judicial authorities of *State vs Achara* and *Frn vs Yahaya Bello*, urged the court not to hear the defence.
“My lord, it is a show of shame and outright disrespect for this court for the defendant to be absent on three different occasions in a criminal trial,” he said.
Besides, he told the court that if the defendant was indisposed, as represented by counsel, then it ought to be deposed by way of an affidavit to be shown as proof before the court.
In the circumstance, Oyedepo prayed the court to issue a bench warrant to compel the attendance of the defendant before the court, adding that this was important to protect the integrity of the court.
Although the defence counsel objected to the grant of a bench warrant by the court and undertook to personally produce the defendant on his honour, the prosecution argued that the defence’s honour or integrity was not in issue.
Oyedepo maintained that the court should issue a legal instrument compelling the appearance of the defendant.
In a short ruling, the court held that, from the court’s record, the earlier bench warrant issued by the court still subsisted, as it had not been withdrawn.
The court consequently held that the defendant is to appear in court on the next adjourned date for his arraignment, either by the subsisting bench warrant or by production by his defence counsel.
Based on the agreement of counsel, the court adjourned the case until 6 March for arraignment.
English (US) ·