EFCC VS Yahaya Bello: Questions Over Fairness as Justice Nwite Adjourns Yahaya Bello's Case for ‘Ruling and Arraignment’ Despite Acknowledging Pending Supreme Court Appeal

In today’s proceedings at the Federal High Court in Abuja, Justice Emeka Nwite adjourned the case by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) against former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello until October 30, 2024. The decision was made to allow time for the judge to rule on whether the arraignment of Bello should proceed or be delayed until after the Supreme Court rules on an appeal by the defendant challenging the legality of a contentious arrest warrant previously issued against him.

Bello’s counsel, A.M. Adoyi, argued that it would be premature to arraign the former governor given that the appeal is already before the Supreme Court. He urged the court to “await the decision of the Supreme Court on the issue,” emphasizing that proceeding with the arraignment, which is the ‘live issue’ of the said appeal, could undermine the judicial process.

Adoyi, ESQ. cited the relevant appeals as numbers SC/CR/847/2024 and SC/CR/848/2024, advising that ‘…the most appropriate thing to do is to await the decision of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid appeal before taking any step for arraignment so as not to render the appellant’s appeal null or to pull the rug out of the feet (sic) of the Supreme Court’.

However, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, representing the EFCC, contested the defense’s stance, arguing that the defense was using procedural delays to avoid addressing the substantive issues of the case. He insisted that the Court of Appeal had already constrained Bello to take no further step in the matter until he is arraigned. He therefore urged the court to exercise its ‘audacity of coercive power’ on him.

While Justice Nwite adjourned the case to rule on counsel’s argument on the application, he curiously scheduled the next hearing date of October 30th for both ruling and arraignment, as reported in media reports. This development raises critical questions of its own within the context of fair hearing and due process.

Notably, as analyzed by Kogipedia, this dual adjournment suggests a possible inclination on the part of the judge to proceed with the arraignment on October 30th, irrespective of the merits of the defense’s pending application. The incongruity of setting a date for arraignment even while withholding a ruling on whether the case should await the Supreme Court’s judgment or not could be interpreted as pre-empting the outcome.

This situation creates a perception of judicial bias or a foregone conclusion, which Kogipedia respectfully notes could affect public trust in due process. Legal experts agree that the Court of Appeal’s ruling that the appellant shall not take any further step until he submits himself for arraignment, does not preclude or deny him his right of appeal.

Accordingly, since Justice Nwite has not yet delivered his ruling in the instant application, the optics of adjourning for both ruling and arraignment leave room for speculation that the court may have already decided on its course of action regarding Bello’s arraignment. As the case progresses, this ambiguity underscores the importance of maintaining both procedural fairness and public confidence in the criminal justice system.

The next steps in this legal battle will be critical, particularly in light of these procedural concerns, as the outcome could set a precedent in how ongoing appeals are treated during criminal proceedings. Kogipedia will continue to monitor developments closely.