EFCC wants suit against Justice Ofili-Ajumogobia struck out for lack of jurisdiction

Four months after it concluded its case against Justice Rita
Ofili-Ajumogobia, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission
(EFCC) on Friday asked an Ikeja High Court to strike out the case
for lack of jurisdiction.

The commission said that the charge, which it brought against
the former judge of the Federal High Court, was not in line with
the guidelines of the National Judicial Council (NJC).

Mr Rotimi Oyedepo, EFCC lead prosecution counsel, said that the
commission conceded that the court lacked the jurisdiction to hear
the suit based on an Appeal Court’s decision in the case of Justice
Nganjuwa versus Federal Republic of Nigeria.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that while delivering
his judgment in the case of Nganjuwa, Justice Obaseki Adejumo of
the Court of Appeal had held that EFCC does not have power to
investigate and prosecute serving judicial officers.

Adejumo said that NJC must first strip Nganjuwa of his judicial
standing before he could be charged to court.

The Court of Appeal judge further held that serving judicial
officers could only be prosecuted for offences such as murder,
stealing done outside the discharge of their duties.

According to him, once judicial officers allegedly commit any
offence in the discharge of their duties, they must be tried first
by NJC.

During Friday’s proceedings, Oyedepo via a written address dated
Dec. 13, 2018, said: “In urging your lordship to strike out the
charge, we concede that in this case, we have done our bit in view
of the fact that the decision in Nganjuwa’s case is still the law
today.

“We state that the charge was not brought in line with the
procedure, and this proceeding is deemed not to have existed in the
first place.

“I pray my lord not to be persuaded by the submission of the
learned Chief Robert Clarke (SAN) to discharge and acquit the first
defendant (Ofili-Ajumogobia).

“Section 73 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL)
is not applicable here, as we have not made an application
attempting to withdraw the charge or information.”

Earlier, Clarke, Ofili-Ajumogobia’s counsel, though an
application dated Nov. 27, 2018, prayed the court to discharge and
acquit her.

“Where evidence has been adduced by the prosecution and they
have closed their case, the consequential order to make as a result
of jurisdiction is to discharge the accused whether on merit or
simplicita.

“Where the question of jurisdiction is raised before the
prosecution called witnesses, the court should discharge
simplicita. Once the defendant is made to take a plea, the court
must discharge him from the plea.

“However where the issue of jurisdiction has not been raised
before the defendant has taken his plea and endured the strain of
trial, the court should discharge and acquit the defendant.

“I urge the court to discharge and acquit the first defendant.
According to Section 73(1) of the ACJL; what has happened in this
case is a withdrawal by agreeing that my lordship has no
jurisdiction,” Clarke said.

Mr Ifedayo Adedipe (SAN) counsel to Godwin Obla (SAN), charged
along with Ofili-Ajumogobia, prayed the court to separate the
charges of the defendants.

“I submit that the second defendant (Obla) is not a judicial
officer covered by the decision in Ngajuwa’s case.

“The subject matter is within the jurisdiction of the court and
the second defendant is within the jurisdiction of the court; so,
the issue of jurisdiction does not apply to the second defendant,”
Adedipe said.

Justice Hakeem Oshodi adjourned the case until April 16 for
ruling.

NAN reports that Ofili-Ajumogobia, had on Dec. 14 slumped within
the court premises when she arrived for her trial.

During proceedings on Friday, she had to walk with the aid of a
stick.

The EFCC charged her with illegally receiving $793,800 in
several tranches from different sources from 2012 to 2015.

The anti-graft agency charged Obla (SAN) with offering N5
million as gratification to Ofili-Ajumogobia so as to pervert the
course of justice.

The offences are contrary to Sections 64(1), 82(a) and 69(1) (a)
of the Criminal Laws of Lagos State No. 11, 2011.

The EFCC closed its case against the embattled judge on Sept.
14, 2018 after presenting 12 witnesses and tendering several
documents which were admitted in evidence by the court. (NAN)