IBADAN, Federal Republic of Nigeria. Dissatisfied with the June 19 ruling of Justice Olayinka Faji of Federal High Court two in Ibadan that denied bail to majority of the bank workers involved in the recirculation of mutilated naira notes meant for briqueting thereby committing economic crimes, some of the accused persons detained at Agodi prisons have appealed against the decision.
Counsel to the 2nd, 3rd and 5th accused persons; Mr Olalekan Ojo told Justice Faji on Friday that he had filed an appeal against the ruling which denied his client’s their right to freedom since the case was a bailable offence.
In addition, Ojo said from the ruling, there appeared likelihood that his clients may not get fair hearing from the court while alleging bias in matter.
Ojo and Mrs. Olayinka Ojo are representing the 2nd and 3rd accused persons in FHC/IB/34c/2015, billed to commence Friday.
It would be recalled that Ojo who is the counsel to Olaniran Muniru Adeola and Toogun Kayode Phillips (2nd and 3rd accused persons), told newsmen few days ago that an appeal would be filed on his clients’ behalf, adding that the judge’s position gave an impression that the accused persons were guilty even before the commencement of their trial.
He said, “The ruling certainly was against our expectation. We knew it could go either way but no state governor and bank chiefs accused of economic crime was denied bail in the past. It is dangerous at this state to go into the substantive issues. There are pronouncements made by the judge that touched on this. This is why we are worried.
“We are filing a motion for stay because he has already found them guilty by some of the pronouncements. It will be suicidal for the accused persons to submit themselves before trial with the judge pronouncement. We want fair hearing,” Ojo added.
He stated further that the ruling which denied his clients’ bail was a miscarriage of justice especially if recent cases of similar dimension like those of former Governors and even the bank chiefs charged to court by the same anti-graft agency for various offences bordering on economic crimes were anything to go by. These ‘highly placed individual’ according to Ojo were granted bail, wondering why the judge would not use his discretionary powers in favour of his clients.
As soon the counsel announced their appearances, with prosecuting counsel, Mr Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) leading a team of other lawyers, Mr Ojo, informed the court of a motion filed before the court, praying it to stay further proceedings pending the determination of his motion. His prayers were to stop Justice Faji from the trial and assign another judge of the Federal High Court to take over the case.
The defendants, according to Ojo could not get fair trial before the Court presided over by Justice Faji, having convicted them by his pronouncements in his earlier ruling on bail applications on June 19, 2015. The counsel specifically made reference to Justice Faji’s pronouncements on the defendants on page 93-97 of the ruling.
He then filed a motion dated June 26, 2015, to the effect, praying for “an order of the honourable court to stay proceedings or further proceedings in charge N0 FHC/IB/34c/2015 pending the determination of the second and third defendants’/applicants’s appeals against the ruling of the honourable court delivered on 19/06/2015.
“In the alternative to relief one supra, an order that, the Honourable Court presided over by Honourable Justice Faji should disqualify itself from hearing the charges preferred against the second and third defendants in charge FHC/IB/34c/2015 pending before the Honourable Court on the ground that the constitutional rights of the second and third defendants/applicants to fair trial will be or is likely to be prejudiced and or impaired by reason of likelihood or real likelihood of bias on the part of presiding Judge”, he said.
However, prosecution counsel, Mr Jacobs, (SAN), expressed his team’s readiness to continue with the trial and even announced to the Court that one of their witnesses was in court, and another who was also billed to testify was on his way.
The trial was however stalled based on what the presiding Judge, Olayinka Faji, described as “Judge on a trial in a public criminal trial.” After assesing the development, he surmised that it seemed to him that the defence counsel did not want the trial to commence. While addressing the court on the development, the presiding judge, said the defence counsel still had the right of hearing on whatever motion filed before the court.
He however added that “I must be cautious”, regarding to the reference to prejudice and jurisdiction had come up in the case. Faji further noted that he would have to wait pending the determination of the Appeal Court whether as trial judge he could comment on the evidence before him.
Faji, then adjourned the case till Wednesday July 1,2015, urging all the counsel to file all motions and counter motions in respects of all other cases before then.
Credit: ThisDay (Nigeria)
