Orji Kalu loses to EFCC on appeal – TheNigerialawyer

The Court of Appeal on Wednesday okayed the dismissal of the
no-case submission filed by a former Abia State Governor, Orji Uzor
Kalu, in response to the N7.65bn fraud charges filed against him by
the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.

In a lead judgment by Justice M.L. Garba, the Court of Appeal
said Justice Mohammed Idris, then of the Federal High Court in
Lagos, was right to have on July 31, 2018 dismissed Kalu’s no-case
submission and ordered him to put in his defence.

The appellate court equally dismissed the appeals filed by
Kalu’s co-defendants – Slok Nigeria Limited and Ude Udeogu –
challenging the jurisdiction of Justice Idris to continue hearing
the case after he was elevated from the Federal High Court to the
Court of Appeal.

Justice Garba held that contrary to the appellants’ contention,
Section 396(7) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015,
which empowers a high judge to continue to hear a part-heard
criminal matter after being elevated to the Court of Appeal, did
not offend the constitution.

The appellate court, therefore, ordered the defendants to return
to the high court to put in their defence.

The prosecution had last year closed its case in the 12-year-old
trial after calling 19 witnesses.

But rather than open their defence, Kalu and his co-defendants
filed no-case submissions.

But before Justice Idris could hear and rule on the no-case
submission he was elevated to the Court of Appeal.

In order to prevent the case from being transferred to another
judge to start afresh, Kalu’s lawyer, Prof. Awa Kalu (SAN),
activated Section 396(7) of the ACJA and applied to the Court of
Appeal’s President, Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa, to give a fiat to
Justice Idris, so that he court return to the high court to
conclude the case.

As a result, Justice Idris was given a fiat to continue hearing
the case, with a condition that he must conclude it by the end of
September 2018.

On July 31, 2018, the judge dismissed the defendants’ no-case
submissions and ordered them to open their defence.

But rather than proceed to open their defence, Kalu sought a
six-week adjournment to embark on a trip to Germany to have a
surgery for an undisclosed ailment.

The defendants later challenged the jurisdiction of the judge to
hear the case, arguing that he was no longer a judge of the high
court.

They also filed an application seeking a stay of proceedings
pending the outcome of their appeals.

Justice Idris dismissed both.

At a time, the judge revoked Kalu’s bail for travelling to
Germany without the court’s permission.

He ordered him to submit himself to the EFCC within 24 hours of
his return to the country.

On January 23 when the case last came up in court, the
prosecutor, Mr Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), fumed about Kalu’s repeated
absence from court, alleging that the former governor, now a
senator-elect, was taking the court for a ride, noting that despite
the court’s order he did not turn himself in to the EFCC.

“He (kalu) kept on campaigning for his senatorial ambition,
slapping the court in the face; his attitude is unbecoming,” Jacobs
said, while urging Justice Idris to continue hearing in Kalu’s
absence.

But in response, Justice Idris said he could not proceed with
the case as the second fiat given him by the Appeal Court President
had expired in November 2018.

While adjourning the 12-year-old case indefinitely, Justice
Idris held, “This matter was listed today because it was adjourned
till today for defence. What has happened is that the last fiat
that was issued by the President of the Court of Appeal has expired
at the end of November 2018.

“On the 10th of January, 2019, I received a fresh fiat in
respect of some matters that I have started and some new matters
but this particular case was not mentioned.

“For this reason, I have a strong feeling that I shouldn’t
continue with proceedings in this case unless there is a further
directive from the President of the Court of Appeal.

“I should not proceed further, otherwise I might be acting
without authority.

“In the circumstance, I am of the view that further proceedings
shouldn’t go on until I receive further information by way of fresh
fiat from the Court of Appeal President. As soon as I receive
further instructions, hearing notice will be sent to counsel.”