Consequently, he urged the court to set aside the exparte
order of arrest it earlier issued against the former governor.
Adedipe, SAN, contended that as at the time the order of
arrest was made, the charge had not been served on his client as required by
the law.
He noted that it was only at the resumed proceedings on
Tuesday that the court okayed substituted service of the charge on the
defendant, through his lawyer.
“As at the time the warrant was issued, the order for
substituted service had not been made. That order was just made this morning.
“A warrant of arrest should not be hanging on his neck when
we leave this court,” counsel to the defendant added.
Besides, the ex-governor maintained that the EFCC is an
illegal organization.
According to him, the Federal Government did not consult the
36 States of the federation before it enacted the EFCC Act through the National
Assembly.
He argued that section 12 of the 1999 Constitution, as
amended, 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,” Bello’s lawyer added.
However, EFCC’s lawyer, Mr. Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, urged the
court to refuse the application, insisting that the warrant of arrest should
not be set aside 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.
“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.”
EFCC’s lawyer further argued that inline with section 396 of
ACJA, 2015, the court could not effectively assume jurisdiction to decide any
application or objection in the matter, until the defendant is arraigned.
The anti-graft agency said it would not execute the arrest
warrant if counsel to the defendant undertake to ensure his presence on the
next adjourned date.
“If he gives an undertaking that his client will be in court
on the next date, I can assure him that the arrest warrant will not be
executed.
“If he gives that assurance, as the prosecution, I will
personally apply for the warrant to discharged,” EFCC’s lawyer, Pinheiro, SAN,
added.
EFCC told the court that the Supreme Court had since settled
the issue of its legality.
“The charge before this court is not against a state or
House of Assembly, but against an individual who is said to have laundered
public funds.
“It is against an individual who is said to have taken
public funds to buy houses in Lagos, Maitama and also transfered funds to his
accounts abroad,” EFCC added.
