JUSTICE Babatunde Quadri of the Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday returned the case file involving the former governor of Jigawa State, Sule Lamido to the Acting Chief Judge of the Court, Justice Abdul Kafarati for re-assignment to another Judge.
Recalled that the Abuja division of the Court of Appeal, had on December 6, 2017, set aside the order of the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court Abuja, Justice Ibrahim Auta, re-assigning Lamido’s trial from Justice Adeniyi Ademola, to Justice Babatunde Quadri.
Justice Ademola was on December 7, 2017, compulsorily retired from the Bench by the National Judicial Council (NJC).
When the matter was called before Justice Quadri yesterday, he announced that he will not hear the matter and returned it to the Acting Chief Judge for re-assignment to another Judge for adjudication.
Lamido, a former governor of Jigawa State, is being prosecuted along with his sons, Aminu and Mustapha; Wada Abubakar, Bamaina Holdings Ltd, Bamaina Company Nigeria Ltd, Bamaina Aluminium Limited and Speeds Int’l Ltd, on an amended 43-count charge bordering on money laundering.
The anti-graft agency alleged that the former governor abused his office, between 2007 and 2015, in awarding contracts to companies in which he and his sons had interests.
Lamido and his co-defendants were first arraigned before Justice Ademola on a 27-count charge, on September 22, 2015, but upon the judge standing trial before a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory on the allegation of money laundering, Justice Auta, the then Chief Judge re-assigned the case to Justice Quadri, before whom it started de novo.
Counsel for Lamido, Kanu Agabi, (SAN), approached the Appellate Court, after Justice Quadri of a Federal High Court Abuja, dismissed two applications brought before the court, asking that the case be returned to Justice Ademola before whom Lamido’s trial began in 2015, and another accusing the trial judge of bias.
Counsel for EFCC, Chile Okoroma, had argued that transferring the case to Justice Ademola could, “raise issues on the likelihood of bias”, noting that Joe Agi (SAN), a counsel for Lamido, stood trial along with Justice Ademola before they were later acquitted of the charges.
Justice Quadri, while dismissing the applications, had ruled that: “In respect to the circumstances of this case, nowhere is it said in the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) that where the trial judge is unable to be present for proceeding in a matter, the Chief Judge is constrained from re-assigning the case.
“At the time the case was transferred, Justice Ademola was not sitting. As it is, amendments have already been made to the charges, upon which the present application was made and argued in this court”, he said.
The ruling of the three-member panel of Justices of the Court of Appeal, read by Justice O. Elechi held that Section 98 (2) of the ACJA was sacrosanct in the instant case, as witnesses had already appeared before Justice Ademola.
He held that: “The power of the Chief Judge shall not be exercised where the prosecution has called witnesses, and in the instance, the prosecution has called 18 witnesses, and so, in light of the above, this issue is resolved in favour of the appellant, and the application is highly meritorious and is hereby allowed, and in the circumstance, order of the Chief Judge transferring case cannot stand and is hereby set aside and ordered to be re-assigned to Justice Ademola for continuation of trial before him.”