Search This Blog

Friday, February 3, 2012

Senator Aliyu Mohammed Ndume



Boko Haram: Court May strike out case against senator

A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja before which embattled Senator Aliyu Mohammed Ndume is standing trial on an alleged sponsorship of the dreaded Islamic fundamental sect, Boko Haram, on Thursday threatened to strike out the charge against the senator over what it termed prosecution delays which had stalled the trial.

The presiding judge, Justice Gabriel Kolawole, threatened to strike out the charge against Ndume following a request made by Mr. Cliff Osagie for adjournment. Osagie stood in for the lead prosecuting counsel and Director of Public Prosecution, Mrs. Olufunmilayo Fatunde.

At the last hearing of the case on 19 December 2011, the court had made an order for accelerated hearing before it adjourned the matter to February 2 and 7 and 14, 2012 for trial.

Osagie said a letter informing the court and the defense of the DPP’s absence as a result of an event of national importance had been forwarded to the concerned parties and as a result of her absence, Osagie had sought for a short adjournment.

Mr. A. A Vangos, who represented the embattled senator did not object to the request for a short adjournment by the prosecutor albeit, he expressed reservations about the seeming tactics being employed by the prosecution team to delay the trial.

Justice Kolawole thereafter threatened to dismiss the charges and discharge the senator if the prosecution is not prepared for the trial.

“Tell the DPP that if she is not ready I will discharge the suspect and that will be the end of the matter. If the state is not ready to prosecute the accused person, withdraw the charges and go to another place.”

The judge observed that the Federal Government was always eager to arraign suspects in high profile criminal cases, but becomes reluctant in the trial proper.

“In view of the background of the last adjourned date, this will be an anti-climax. The national assignment which she is going to, or has gone for, was not even disclosed to our office. I am still wondering which other national assignment can actually prevent her presence in this court today.

This case had earlier, with her consent, been adjourned to today and 7th February 2012, for trial. I have always expressed my displeasure with regards to applications for adjournment of criminal cases.” The furious judge blasted.

He added that “a trend one has noticed from the bench is that the state is always so anxious, perhaps too nervous, to arraign accused persons in high profile criminal cases such as this with a lot of media blitz, but when it gets to the nitty gritty of the real trial, the excitement and eagerness wanes. I have made the point to Mr. Osagie that this court is so flooded with many cases that it has no time, resources or energy, to spare for cases that are not to be prosecuted immediately”

Warning that future applications for adjournment would be seriously refused, the judge stated that he cannot grant accelerated hearing of the trial on one hand and on the other hand be disposed to indulge a party, particularly the prosecution, with needless and avoidable adjournments.

He thereafter adjourned the matter to March 21 and 28, and April 10, 2012 for definite trial.

No comments:

Post a Comment