Drama As Maina’s Lawyer Tells Judge He Wants To Withdraw

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission has opposed a plan
by Sani Katu (SAN), counsel to Abdulrasheed Maina, Chairman of the
defunct Pension Reformed Task Team, to withdraw from the ongoing
money laundering trial.

EFCC’s counsel, Farouk Abdullah, urged Justice Okon Abang of the
Federal High Court, Abuja, to reject the oral application by Mr.
Katu because it failed to comply with the law’s relevant
section.

Mr. Katu notified the court of his intention to withdraw from
the trial.

He explained, “The matter is for the continuation of hearing for
us to bring another witness. Before then, we have a very simple
application to make. It is to seek from this honourable court to
withdraw from this matter. In making this application, we have all
it takes to appreciate the court’s indulgence.”

However, Mr. Abdullah opposed the prayer, saying Mr. Katu did
not comply with Section 349(8) of the Administration of Criminal
Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 in making the request.

“As rightly stated by the senior counsel, the matter is slated
for continuation of defence. My lord, the defendant has a
constitutional right to a counsel of his choice, and a counsel in a
matter can also withdraw at any time he deems fit.

“My only reservation is the non-compliance with Section 349(8)
of ACJA 2015. In view of the non-compliance of senior counsel with
the provision of extant law on withdrawal of counsel, we pray the
court to refuse the application and direct that the business of the
day be done,” he said.

Mr. Katu, who acknowledged that the section of the law provided
that an application for notification to withdraw had to be made to
the court not less than three days before the hearing, said he
discussed the matter with the prosecution counsel off the
record.

He, therefore, prayed the court for a short adjournment to
enable him to file necessary papers in compliance with the law.

Responding, Mr. Abdullah said the law did not give the court the
avenue to use its discretionary power on the matter.

“The operative words ‘shall notify the court’ is mandatory to
rob the court of the discretion to direct otherwise. We, therefore,
urge the court to discountenance his application for adjournment,”
he added.

In his ruling, the judge, who held that “what is off the record
is not before the court,” said the adjournment application lacked
merit.

“Obviously, he did not comply with Section 349(8) of ACJA,” he
ruled.

The judge added that Katu had not offered any explanation on his
intention to withdraw from the case. He said his plan to withdraw
was to compound the issues before the court and hold the court to
ransom.

Mr. Abang, who refused the application, ordered the proceeding
for the day to continue.

In the trial, Joe Gadzama (SAN) Adeola Adedipe, were among Mr.
Maina’s lawyers who had withdrawn from the case.

Mr. Maina and his company, Common Input Limited, are being
prosecuted by the EFCC on charges bordering on money laundering to
the tune of N2.1 billion. (NAN)

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission has opposed a plan
by Sani Katu (SAN), counsel to Abdulrasheed Maina, Chairman of the
defunct Pension Reformed Task Team, to withdraw from the ongoing
money laundering trial.

EFCC’s counsel, Farouk Abdullah, urged Justice Okon Abang of the
Federal High Court, Abuja, to reject the oral application by Mr.
Katu because it failed to comply with the law’s relevant
section.

Mr. Katu notified the court of his intention to withdraw from
the trial.

He explained, “The matter is for the continuation of hearing for
us to bring another witness. Before then, we have a very simple
application to make. It is to seek from this honourable court to
withdraw from this matter. In making this application, we have all
it takes to appreciate the court’s indulgence.”

However, Mr. Abdullah opposed the prayer, saying Mr. Katu did
not comply with Section 349(8) of the Administration of Criminal
Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 in making the request.

“As rightly stated by the senior counsel, the matter is slated
for continuation of defence. My lord, the defendant has a
constitutional right to a counsel of his choice, and a counsel in a
matter can also withdraw at any time he deems fit.

“My only reservation is the non-compliance with Section 349(8)
of ACJA 2015. In view of the non-compliance of senior counsel with
the provision of extant law on withdrawal of counsel, we pray the
court to refuse the application and direct that the business of the
day be done,” he said.

Mr. Katu, who acknowledged that the section of the law provided
that an application for notification to withdraw had to be made to
the court not less than three days before the hearing, said he
discussed the matter with the prosecution counsel off the
record.

He, therefore, prayed the court for a short adjournment to
enable him to file necessary papers in compliance with the law.

Responding, Mr. Abdullah said the law did not give the court the
avenue to use its discretionary power on the matter.

“The operative words ‘shall notify the court’ is mandatory to
rob the court of the discretion to direct otherwise. We, therefore,
urge the court to discountenance his application for adjournment,”
he added.

In his ruling, the judge, who held that “what is off the record
is not before the court,” said the adjournment application lacked
merit.

“Obviously, he did not comply with Section 349(8) of ACJA,” he
ruled.

The judge added that Katu had not offered any explanation on his
intention to withdraw from the case. He said his plan to withdraw
was to compound the issues before the court and hold the court to
ransom.

Mr. Abang, who refused the application, ordered the proceeding
for the day to continue.

In the trial, Joe Gadzama (SAN) Adeola Adedipe, were among Mr.
Maina’s lawyers who had withdrawn from the case.

Mr. Maina and his company, Common Input Limited, are being
prosecuted by the EFCC on charges bordering on money laundering to
the tune of N2.1 billion. (NAN)