By Ikechukwu Nnochiri
ABUJA — An Abuja High Court, yesterday, held that the erstwhile Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Capital Market and Other Institutions, Herman Hembe and his deputy, Chris Ifeanyi Azubogu, have a case to answer regarding their alleged complicity in a N44 million bribery scandal.
Trial Justice Abubakar Sadiq Umar okayed the two lawmakers for prosecution after he declined to quash any of the two-count charge preferred against them by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC.
The judge maintained that having gone through the substantive charge vis-à-vis the accompanying proof of evidence before the court, he was satisfied that the anti-graft agency successfully established a prima-facie case against the accused persons.
Consequently, he dismissed two separate preliminary objections that sought to insulate the two embattled lawmakers from prosecution, even as the court fixed July 18 and 19 to commence accelerated hearing on the substantive allegations against them.
Besides, Justice Umar ordered the EFCC to produce its witnesses before the court on the next adjourned date.
The prosecuting agency had in the charge it entered in court, alleged that its investigations revealed that the accused persons sought gratification from the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, with a view to compromising standard in the probe of alleged sharp practices in the Nigerian Capital Market.
It told the court that while under interrogation, the accused persons admitted pocketing various sums of money from SEC on the pretence of attending different kinds of workshops abroad.
EFCC said at one time, the accused persons pretended they were attending a capacity building workshop in the Dominican Republic, and collected a “huge” sum of money from SEC, but failed to either attend such programme or refund the money.
It said the fraud was discovered while investigating allegation that the suspended SEC DG, Ms Arunma Oteh, lavished N30 million on hotel bills alone.
Oteh had in the heat of probe into circumstances behind the near collapse of the Capital Market insisted that Hembe was “unfit” to head the investigative panel, alleging that he had demanded N44 million from SEC as gratification.
Meanwhile, the lawmakers had in their separate preliminary objections, contended that the high court was bereft on the requisite jurisdiction to try them over a charge they said was baseless and grossly incompetent.
They equally queried the legal propriety of the leave the court granted the EFCC to prosecute them, just as they declined to either mount the dock or enter their plea to the charge pending the determination of the objection which was thrown out yesterday.
Arguing through his counsel, Chief Jibrin Okutekpa, SAN, Hembe had urged the court to quash the charge, saying the House of Reps Committee on Ethics and Privileges, was still investigating the uncanny feud that ensued between him and ousted SEC DG, Oteh, when he headed the probe panel.
Alleging that EFCC falsified information with a view to ensuring their prosecution at all cost, the 1st accused person, Hembe, told the court that “the prosecution is nothing but persecution and a waste of Nigeria’s public money. By virtue of Section 89 of the 1999 constitution, it is the National Assembly that has the jurisdiction to investigate this matter.”
His arguments were adopted by the 2nd accused, Ifeanyi, who through his own counsel, Chief Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, argued that since the report of the House’s Ethics committee was yet to be released, it would not be in the interest of justice to try the accused person, saying “the court must rely on an investigative report before trial.”
“There is a case inadequacy of documents, so there is no case for the 2nd accused person to answer to, especially as he sought to return the money through the Clerk of the House, only for the Director-General of SEC to ask him to keep the money, since there will be another conference. The absence of the DG of SEC in this case exposes the complicity in it,” he added.
Invoking section 167 (b) of the Evidence Act, Ikpeazu argued that, “the prosecution is bound to produce all criminal documents to the court to warrant trial and the absence of the DG of SEC in this case exposes the complicity in it.”
Oteh had at a public hearing that was initiated by the House of Reps, alleged that SEC, gave Hembe estacode and a first class ticket to attend a capital market conference in the Dominican Republic but he did not travel for the event.
In a swift reaction, Hembe, who subsequently disqualified himself from heading the probe panel on the basis of the allegations, presented documents to the lower legislative to prove that it was SEC, with Oteh’s approval, that offered N30m to the committee, contrary to her allegation that the lawmakers demanded bribe.
His evidence led the SEC DG to release a letter detailing requests she said was sent to the commission by the House probe committee.
She claimed that the agency was already processing the request for electronic payment but “smelt a rat” when it was approached a day to the hearing with another N5m cash request, which she claimed was a personal cut for Hembe as Chairman of the probe panel, saying allegation that she recklessly spent a whooping N30m on hotel bills in eight months, was false.
Likewise, Oteh was accused of spending N850, 000 and N85, 000 on feeding on separate days in the same hotel.
Sequel to the controversy, the House of Reps, ordered the Committee on Ethics and Privileges to within 21 days investigate the allegations, even as it mandated Hembe to submit himself for investigation by theEFCC, a process that culminated to the 2-count charge before the high court.
SOURCE: 5 July 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment