Former Kogi State governor, Yahaya Bello has asked for the transfer of his case with the Economic and Financial Commission, EFCC to Kogi State where the alleged offense took place when he governed the State for 8 years.
He contended that his trial should take place in Kogi State since the allegations bother on his activities while in office as governor of Kogi State.
It is recalled that Bello has been under investigation by the anti-graft agency and he is currently facing prosecution in Court over alleged N80.2 billion money laundering and fraud.
Bello’s attempt to put up contemptuous case against the Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, Ola Olukoyede failed at the Court of Appeal in Abuja as the Court of Appeal granted an ex parte motion for stay of proceedings of contempt application.
The Appeal Court presided by Justice Joseph O.K. Oyewole and assisted by two Honourable Justices, P.C. Obiora JCA and Okon Abang JCA went further to grant EFCC’s application to serve the processes through a substituted means on Yahaya Bello.
Olukoyede was summoned to appear before the Kogi State High Court in May to show cause why he should not be committed to prison for disobeying its orders following the siege laid to the former governor’s Abuja home after the court ruled in favour of Bello in the fundamental human rights suits he filed before the court.
The EFCC boss, however, appealed the ruling of the trial court and sought a stay of the proceedings of the court.
The Kogi State High Court based its ruling on the premise that the EFCC chair carried out “some acts upon which they (the EFCC) have been restrained” by the Court on February 9, pending the hearing and determination of the substantive originating motion.
However, in a unanimous judgment on Thursday, the three-man panel of justices; Justice A.M. Talba, Justice D. Z. Senchi, and Justice Joseph Oyewole, set aside the proceedings.
While delivering the lead judgment, justice Oyewole, overruled the respondent’s preliminary objection, citing technicalities.
The appellate court said the high court judge failed to extend the orders of February 9, 2024 in its final judgment of April 17, 2024, adding that the second issue raised by the respondent on the interim order, had become an academic exercise.
