Court To Hear Pending Motions Against Rural Electrification Boss, Others

court-of-appeal-1-Grade-A-Customary-Court
Spread the love

A Federal High Court in Abuja, Nigeria’s capital, has fixed October 4 for hearing on pending motions filed by parties in criminal charges against Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Rural Electrification Agency (REA), Mr. Ahmad Salihijo Ahmad and others.

Justice James Omotosho fixed the date to enable parties exchange their processes and argue their case on all the pending applications in the next adjourned date.

Donnington Nigeria Ltd. had filed four separate charges bordering on breach of Money Laundering Act before the court on behalf of Nigerian Government.

While Donnington Nigeria Ltd is the complainant, Velocity Logistics & Marine Limited and Ahmad are 1st and 2nd defendants in the charge.

The plaintiff alleged that Ahmad aided Velocity Logistics, a designated non-financial institution, between January 2014 and January 2018 in failing to report in writing to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) any lodgment or outflow transaction from the company’s Zenith Bank account number: 016639377 of the sums above N5 million.

This, it said, as required under Section 10(1) b of the Money Laundering Prohibition Act, 2011 (as amended) and thereby committed an offence under Section 18(a) of the said Act and punishable under Section 16 (2)(b) of the same Act.

The complainant, while prosecuting the matter, also filed three different charges against three other companies and their directors.

They are, Winslow Logistics Ltd and Mr. Alkali Habib, a director and shareholder at Sahams Crystal Investment Ltd and Abdulmumini Haruna, as well as Equip Logistics Services Limited and Edwin Iyk Anyadigibe, its director and a shareholder.

When the matter involving Velocity Logistics and Ahmad was called, the prosecution counsel, Reuben Atabo, SAN, informed the court that the case was scheduled for arraignment and hearing of preliminary objection.

Atabo, who observed that the defendant was not in court, told the court that the defendant lawyer served them with their notice of preliminary objection.

The senior lawyer said their response, which was yet to be in the court record, was expected to be filed.

Justice Omotosho held that even if the defendant was in court, the motion challenging the jurisdiction of the court had to be determined.

Counsel to the defendants, Abdul Mohammed, SAN, called the court’s attention to media report of the last adjourned date.

Justice Omotosho, who advised lawyers in the matter to be careful of what they relate to public, adjourned the matter to October 4th for hearing of pending applications, including other three sister cases.

Speaking to newsmen shortly on the alleged use of media against the defendants, prosecution counsel, Reuben Atabo, who represented the prosecution, said the public had the right to know what transpired in court.

“It is the constitutional rights of the public to be aware of what transpired. Court is not a cult where what transpired should be restricted to the courtroom alone.

“But whatever transpired must be properly published to the public. Once that is done, no right of anybody would have been violated. It is part of fair hearing,” he said.

Also speaking on why the defendants were not in court, Victor Opara, SAN, who appeared for Equip Logistics Services Limited and Edwin Iyk Anyadigibe said, “every defendant would certainly face his trial any day.”

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp