Ezebunwo Nyesom Wike V. Federal Republic Of Nigeria (2009)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

AYOBODE O. LOKULO-SODIPE, J.C.A

This is an appeal against the Ruling delivered by Honourable Justice F.A. Ojo of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja on 17th March, 2009 refusing and dismissing the Appellant’s application dated 23rd October, 2008 seeking to quash the criminal charge preferred against him. The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja will hereafter be simply referred to as the lower court.

The facts relevant to the appeal as gathered from the brief of argument of the Appellant are to the effect that Appellant at all material time was/is the Chief of Staff to the Governor of Rivers State. By his schedule of duties, he is the administrative officer for Rivers State Government House, Port-Harcourt. His duties as Chief of Staff are related to Rivers State.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (hereinafter simply referred to as “the EFCC”) caused the Appellant to be arrested upon a petition written by a body called “Rivers Union”. It is the case of the Appellant that nobody from the supposed union made any statement to the “EFCC”. In the circumstance it was said that there was nothing volunteered by the “union” as evidence against the Appellant. The Appellant claimed that the petition which formed the basis of his arrest has as its root, his activities with his bank – Port-Harcourt branch of Zenith Bank Plc. There was nothing to connect the Appellant with Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. It is also the claim of the Appellant that nothing transpired in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja from the three statements attached to the proof of evidence.

It is alleged that the Respondent left Port-Harcourt where the Appellant works and where the Bank accounts he is alleged to have used in committing offences are located, and came to the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja for the purpose of arraigning him. The Appellant said that the choice of venue by the Respondent is a clog put in his way to defend himself. The inhibition the Appellant has also alleged is a violation of his right to fair trial in that, he has been put in such a situation that, he has not been given the appropriate opportunity to prepare for and defend himself of the allegations leveled against him.

Furthermore, the Appellant claimed that none of the three prosecution witnesses made any statement to show that, he committed any offence within the Federal Capital Territory or under the Penal Code Law of the Federal Capital Territory to enable the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory assume jurisdiction on the complaints leveled against him. The Appellant equally claims that no witness made any statement relating to the ingredients or the essential elements of the offences leveled against him.

In the light of the above, the Appellant being of the view that his prosecution on the basis of the Charge preferred against him is an abuse of the process of court filed an application on notice praying that the said Charge be quashed. As already stated the lower court dismissed the application of the Appellant.

The Appellant being dissatisfied with the Ruling has appealed to this Court by a Notice of Appeal dated 30/3/2009 filed on the same day. The Notice of Appeal contains five grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal shorn of their respective particulars read thus: –

“1. The learned trial judge erred in law and acted against the tenets, intendment and spirit of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, in particular, section 36 thereof, when he held thus:

“On the first issue it is my humble view that by virtue of section 5(1) of the EFCC Act the Rivers State Government itself need not complain of missing funds before the EFCC can cause investigation and prosecution in relation to affairs of Rivers State Government and I so hold” and thereby came to a wrong decision which has occasioned a miscarriage of justice and against the aforesaid provision of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999

2. The learned trial judge erred in law when he held;

“From the statements of the witnesses and the documents attached thereto including the bank statements of the Government House Port-Harcourt and that of the accused at Zenith Bank, Port-Harcourt branch there is evidence that funds belonging to the Rivers State Government were lodged and withdrawn and some of the said funds flowed into the account of the accused person in questionable circumstances.

In the circumstance I am of the humble view that a prima facie case has been established against the accused person/applicant and that there are grounds for proceedings against him”

and thereby came to a wrong decision in holding that a prima facie case has been established against the Appellant and this has occasioned a miscarriage of justice.