N12b currency fraud: Lawyer accuses judge of bias

 Trial of some members of staff of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and some commercial banks involved in the alleged N12 billion mutilated currency fraud was stalled yesterday as the

counsel for two of the accused persons, Mr Olalekan Ojo, accused Justice Olayinka Faji of bias.

Ojo, who is the lead counsel to the second and third accused – Olaniran Muniru Adeola and Toogun Kayode Philip – filed an application seeking disqualification of the trial judge and a stay of proceedings pending determination of the appeal against ruling of the court on June 19.

The two accused requested the Court of Appeal to direct the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court to transfer or assign the case to another judge.

A total of 22 persons were arraigned by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in seven different cases. Six of the accused work with the CBN, while the others work with various commercial banks.

The shock came when the first case marked FHC/IB/34C/2015, involving five persons came up for trial yesterday. The accused in the first case are Kolawole Babalola, Olaniran Muniru Adeola, Toogun Philip, Ajumwa Bolade and Samuel Ogbeide.

The judge had delivered rulings on applications for bail on June 19 and adjourned trial to June 26.

Lead counsel for the EFCC, Mr Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), had announced that two witnesses were ready to give evidence yesterday.

He disclosed that one of the witnesses was in the court and that the second one was on his way from Lagos with the assurance that he would arrive on time.

But, taking his turn,  Ojo informed the court of a motion he  filed before the court, seeking a stay of proceedings pending the determination of his appeal and prayer to reassign the case to another judge.

He said his clients cannot get fair trial before the court presided over by Justice Faji, having convicted them by his pronouncements in some sections of his ruling on bail applications on June 19, 2015. The counsel specifically made reference to Justice Faji’s pronouncements on the defendants on page 93 to 97 of the ruling.

He disclosed that the motion was filed earlier yesterday. Counsel for the first defendant, Otunba Olayinka Bolanle, also aligned with Ojo’s views.

He further informed the court of his motion, challenging the jurisdiction of the court on the case.

Bolanle said the motion was filed with regard to “propriety to continue with the trial, to expressions made in the ruling to the first defendant.”

He added that the motion was to challenge the partisanship and the jurisdiction of the court. But counsel for the fourth defendant, Dare Adebayo, expressed willingness to defend their client in the trial.

Consequently, the judge could not go on with the trial.

He described the situation as ”Judge on a trial in a public criminal trial.” Though he ruled the development which seemed to him that the defence counsel did not want the trial to commence.

Justice Faji said the defence counsel were entitled to the right of hearing on whatever motion filed before the court, pointing out: ”I must be cautious” while referring to the issue of prejudice and jurisdiction.

He said the court would have to wait for the determination of the Court of Appeal’s decision on whether as trial judge he can comment on the evidence before him. Faji then adjourned hearing of the application to Wednesday July 1.

He urged all the counsel to file their motions and counter motions in respects of all other sister cases before then.