A nation betrayed: Confident Dimeji Bankole challenges EFCC legality to prosecute him.

London 20/07/2011: An attempt by the former House of Representatives, Hon Dimeji Bankole to establish an escape route for corrupt leaders and  public office holders in the country to avoid justice when faced with the long hand of the law has been challenged by the Economic and Financial Crime Commission.

Mr Bankole had trivialized the current corruption charges against him claiming that the EFCC had no legal right to try him because the foundation of his case had been wobbled due to the absence of a positioned  Attorney  General who would have had  such powers to order his prosecution as at the time his case was being brought into  court.

If his claim is granted, many other public office criminals may use the point as a precedence, to escape justice  despite carrying out economic rape against the nation.

The prosecution attorney for the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Festus Keyamo, kicked against the former  speaker’s submission  accusing him of seeking to determine and calling the shots on who could prosecute him and who could not. He urged that court to disregard Bankole’s request.

Bankole contended in an affidavit that Mr Keyamo was the wrong lawyer to handle his case, even though he is representing the state.

Hon Bankole has obviously  regained his countenance and confidence following his release from EFCC custody sometimes ago, following his arrest on the eve of his leaving office.

In an application to quash the charges of illegally obtaining a N38 billion loan leveled against him before an Abuja High Court, Mr Bankole, through his lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo, said there was no shred of evidence to sustain the 17-count charge of corruption against him.

In addition to previous objections regarding the powers of any court of law in Nigeria to try him for his actions while he was Speaker, Mr Bankole, in a motion filed on July 18, is requesting that Mr Keyamo be disqualified by the court to prosecute him.

is because Mr Keyamo had written a petition against him in respect of another transaction, regarding the purchase of Peugeot 407 cars for members of the House of Representatives and that Mr Keyamo has shown malice and bias against him in the past.

Mr Bankole further asked for an order quashing the charges against him because “the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has neither statutory nor constitutional power to issue authority to a private prosecutor, to prosecute offences created by or under the Penal Code Act in any court of law, without the fiat of the Attorney General of the Federation first being sought and obtained, and usage of the powers as a vindictive weapon against the applicant.”

Insult of court

But Mr Keyamo said it was evident that the Accused/Applicant was merely shopping for whom he prefers to prosecute him.

“The law is that an accused person is not at liberty to pick and choose and cannot raise an objection as to who can prosecute him,” the lawyer said.

He also argued that the objection seeks to gag the prosecutor and every other lawyer in this country from raising alarm about corruption against public officers, as such, a lawyer may stand the risk of being barred from prosecuting any such public officer.

“In fact, if the argument of the applicant succeeds, public officers standing trial would only have to dig into the past to find out whether the prosecutor has made any comment at all in the past against such a public officer for the prosecutor to be disqualified,” he said.

Mr Keyamo also stated that the case of the Applicant is presented as if the court cannot act as a proper arbiter between the prosecution and the defence and as if the prosecution will foist a fait accompli on the court in the trial.

“This is tantamount to insulting the intelligence and authority of this court,” he said.

 

Posted by admin on 4:35 pm. Filed under Editorial. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry