The absence of defense counsel in court on Wednesday May 24, 2017 stalled the corruption trial of Abiodun Agbele, an aide to Ekiti State governor, Ayodele Fayose, who is being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, on an 11 count charge of money laundering to the tune of N1.2 billion before Justice Nnamdi Dimgba of the Federal High Court sitting in Maitama, Abuja.
The money was said to be part of N4.7 billion allegedly transferred from the account of the Office of the National Security Adviser, ONSA, to the bank account of Sylvan McNamara (a company allegedly owned by the sons of Obanikoro) ahead of Ekiti State 2014 governorship election.
At the resumed trial today, the prosecuting counsel, Wahab Shitu, told Justice Dimgba that the matter was slated for further cross-examination of the PW1, Alade Sunday.
However, counsel to the 3rd defendant, Olalekan Ojo, drew the attention of the court to marked absence of the second defendant’s counsel, adding that as a matter of fundamental right, counsel to the second defendant ought to cross-examine the witness him.
“There is a second defendant on record which has the right to cross examine PW1 before the third defence counsel can be properly called upon to cross examine. I most respectfully refer your Lordship to Section 216 of the Evidence Act, 2011, which says if more than one defendant are charged at the same time, each defence counsel would be allowed to cross-examine witness by the prosecution.
“The second defence counsel has notice of today’s sitting, but he’s not in court. It would be recalled that, Mike Ozekhome, SAN, withdrew his appearance in this case orally before this court. Since then, there is no legal representation for the second defendant before your Lordship”, Ojo said.
Citing Section 349 of the ACJA, 2015, Ojo argued that where a counsel for a party is given leave to withdraw, notice should be giving to all parties, but in this circumstance, Ozekhome did not write to inform the court or any of the parties.
Responding, Wahab Shitu, counsel to the EFCC, urged the court to take notice of proceeding from inception saying, “there is a proper arraignment with pleas of all the defendants and all the defendants were represented by counsels”.
Citing Section 349 (8) of the ACJA, Shittu argued that, “there is no proper withdrawal of the second defence counsel in this matter”.
According to him, “a counsel is supposed to inform the court of his withdrawal three days before hearing, but no such notice was given before the court or prosecution”.
He said that Ozekhome failed to notify the second defendant for disengaging in the case and thus breach professional conduct.
Shitu told the court the action is a calculated attempt to delay trial and urged the court not to allow it.
After listening to the arguments, Justice Dimgba adjourned to July 3 – 4, 2017 for continuation of trial.
