Sunday Gabriel Ehindero V. Federal Republic Of Nigeria & Anor (2017)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

EJEMBI EKO, J.S.C.

At the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory the appellant and one other are defending a 6-count charge alleging conspiracy to criminally convert public funds and criminal conversion of public funds totalling N16,412,315.00 being interests generated from two fixed deposit accounts.

The Bayelsa State Government made a donation of N557,995,065.00 to the Nigeria Police Force (NPF), at the time the appellant was the Inspector General of Police, to enable the NPF purchase equipment for proper policing of Bayelsa State. It appears from the summary of the statement of Olayinka Ayegbayo, an investigator with the Independent Corrupt Practices and other Offences Commission (ICPC), that the appellant and the 2nd Accused had agreed to place and did place N300,000,000.00 and N200,000,000.00 into fixed deposits respectively at Wema Bank Plc and Intercontinental Bank Plc. The two fixed deposits allegedly netted a total of N16,412,315.56 as interests. Mr. Ayegbayo, listed as a witness in the proofs of evidence, would, at the trial, testify inter alia that: when the President of the Federal

1

Republic of Nigeria directed the appellant to transfer the money donated by the Bayelsa State to the Federal Ministry of Police Affairs to make the necessary purchases for the Police, the appellant delayed his compliance with the presidential directive until after the maturity of the fixed deposits. When in November 2006, the appellant caused the principal sum donated by the Bayelsa State Government to be transferred to the Ministry of Police Affairs the interests earned from the fixed deposits were not transferred with the principal sum. It is alleged that the appellant and his co-accused conspired and criminally converted the said interests totalling N16,412,315.56 to their personal use. The conversion of this sum forms the crux of the 6 charges the appellant and the co-accused are defending at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory.

The prosecution has listed Mr. Ayegbayo and three bank managers to testify at the trial. The summary of the proposed evidence is attached to the proofs of evidence. The list of Exhibits to be tendered together with the extra judicial statements of the accused persons, the appellant’s inclusive, are also

2

included in the proofs of evidence.

On 6th June, 2012, the appellant filed a motion on notice, by way of preliminary objection, wherein he prayed the trial Court for the following orders-

1. AN ORDER of this Court dismissing and/or striking out the amended charge for want of jurisdiction.
2. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court quashing the amended charge against the Accused/applicant for want of competency.
3. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court debarring Mr. Paul Ahmed Bassi or any official of the Independent Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Commission from prosecuting the 1st Accused/Applicant, they having no constitutional power to do so,

OR

4. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court setting aside its order of 31st May, 2012 granting leave to the complainant/Respondent to prefer charge No. FCT/HC/CR/92/12 against the Accused/Applicant.

The application was predicated on the following 12 grounds.

1. It is the Federal High Court that has jurisdiction to entertain the amended charge preferred against the 1st Accused/Applicant. Section 251(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution as altered gives the Federal High Court

3

Jurisdiction over civil matters relating to the revenue of the Government of the Federation in which the said Government or any organ thereof or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the said Government is a party, or is interested.

2. The Respondent having shown by the wide publicity given to the case of the 1st Accused/Applicant in the world media and on internet even before obtaining the leave of Court to prefer the amended charge and before the 1st Accused/Applicant’s arraignment has demonstrated that it can only be a persecutor and not an unbiased, uninvolved prosecutor.
3. Section 251(3) of the 1999 Constitution, as altered, provides that the Federal High Court shall also have and exercise jurisdiction and powers in respect of criminal causes and matters in respect of which jurisdiction is conferred by, Subsection (1) thereof.
4. The criminal jurisdiction of the Federal High Court derives from its civil jurisdiction as contained in Section 251(1)(a).
5. The parties and subject matter in this amended charge fall squarely under the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court not the FCT High Court.
6. The Corrupt Practices and other

4