Court Reserves Ruling On Ex-Taraba Governor Ishaku’s Objection In ₦27 Billion Fraud Case

Justice Sylvanus Oriji of the Federal Capital Territory High Court has reserved ruling on the preliminary objections raised by former Taraba State Governor, Darius Ishaku, who is challenging the court’s jurisdiction in a ₦27 billion fraud case.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has charged Ishaku alongside Bello Yero, a former Permanent Secretary in the state’s Bureau for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs, on a 15-count charge bordering on criminal breach of trust, conspiracy, and conversion of public funds.

The judge deferred the ruling after listening to arguments from both parties concerning the defendants’ preliminary objection to the court’s authority to hear the matter.

Justice Oriji stated that his decision to reserve ruling until the time of judgment was in line with the provisions of Section 396(3) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA).

Before the adjournment, counsel for the former governor, P.H. Ogbole (SAN), and counsel for Yero, Adeola Adedipe (SAN), urged the court to uphold their objections.

In his argument, Ogbole contended that the court lacked both constitutional and territorial jurisdiction to preside over the case. He submitted that the charges before the court relate to the finances of the Taraba State government.

“The exclusive power to investigate and prosecute anyone on issues relating to state finances is vested in the state government,” Ogbole argued, emphasizing that the matter should be handled by the state’s judiciary rather than a federal court.

The EFCC had arraigned Ishaku and Yero on allegations of misappropriating public funds totalling ₦27 billion during Ishaku’s tenure as governor. The charges include criminal breach of trust, conspiracy, and conversion of public funds for personal use.

The prosecution maintained that the Federal High Court holds the jurisdiction to hear the case due to the nature of the offences and the involvement of federal laws.

Justice Oriji’s decision to reserve the ruling means that the determination of the court’s jurisdiction will be made at the time of the final judgment. The case has been adjourned to a later date for the continuation of proceedings.

The development has drawn attention to the legal nuances of jurisdiction in cases involving state finances and former public officials. Legal observers await the court’s final decision, which could set a precedent for similar cases in the future.

According to him, even by its own admission, the prosecution in its affidavit against the preliminary objection, admitted that part of the alleged offences committed by the defendants took place in Abuja.

On his part, Adedipe urged the court to strike out the charge for lack of procedural and territorial jurisdiction and argued that the power of EFCC to prosecute financial crimes over the finances of a state is limited.

Citing the case of Shema v FRN, the senior advocate submitted that there is an anti-corruption commission in Taraba, adding that the Supreme Court had said that where such an agency exists in the state, EFCC cannot take over.

He said the law empowered the Taraba State Anti-Corruption Commission to investigate and prosecute any offence relating to the state’s finances, which he said EFCC was now doing in the instant case.

He submitted that the charge before the court had to do with the finances of Taraba State and urged the court to take judicial notice of the law establishing the Taraba State Anti-Corruprion Commission.

Responding, the prosecuting counsel, Rotimi Jacobs, SAN, urged the court to dismiss the defendant’s preliminary objection, asserting that the court has substantive jurisdiction to entertain the matter, while the defendants stated that it lacked territorial jurisdiction.

He said the law the second defendant wanted the court to take judicial notice of was not gazetted.

Jacobs added that the law provided places for the Taraba State governor and Speaker of the state House of Assembly to sign it but did not sign it.

Meanwhile, Justice Oriji has adjourned the case until Jan. 21, for hearing.

In the charge marked CR/792/24, the EFCC accused the defendants of diverting the sum of N1,010,000,000 to their personal use between Aug. 25, 2015, and March 21, 2016, in Abuja.

The agency said the amount formed part of the 2.5 per cent contingency funds belonging to the Bureau of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs.

The EFCC noted that the duo committed an offence contrary to Section 315 of the Penal Code A, Cap 532, Laws of the Federal Capital Territory of Nigeria 2007 and punishable under the same section.

Ishaku and Yero were also accused of diverting an aggregate sum of N1,138,082, 097.71 which formed part of the 2.5 per cent contingency fund belonging to the Bureau of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs between July 2015 and May 2019.

Also, between Sept. 3, 2015, and Jan. 29, 2018, in Abuja, the defendants were accused of diverting the sum of N761,301,000 to defray the loan of N1bn granted by Zenith Bank Plc. to your company, Worthy Construction Limited.

Other sums that allegedly formed part of the contingency fund diverted by the defendants included N650,686,369.99 between January 6, 2019, and April 29, 2021; N193,030,000 between Jan. 2019 and April 29, 2021; and N170,549,842.00 between Jan. 6, 2019, and April 29, 2021, among others.

They, however, pleaded not guilty to the charge.

The post Court Reserves Ruling On Ex-Taraba Governor Ishaku’s Objection In ₦27 Billion Fraud Case appeared first on Naija News.