Nigerians are poised to be treated to a legal battle as the embattled former governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Godwin Emefiele, on Monday challenged the jurisdiction of an Ikeja Special Offences Court to hear the alleged abuse of office and multi billion dollars fraud leveled against him.
According to the News Agency of Nigeria, Mr Olalekan Ojo, A Senior Advocate Of Nigeria (SAN) led other counsel that are lined up to defend Emefiele while another SAN, Mr Kazeem Gbadamosi, appeared for the former CBN governor co-defendant, Henry Isioma-Omoile.
Ojo in his motion on notice dated April 24 argued that the court lacked the constitutional jurisprudence to hear the charge against Emefiele.
He said: “There is need to consider jurisdictional objections before allowing this case.
READ ALSO: Free At Last, Emefiele Meets Bail Conditions, Released!
READ ALSO: Emefielegate: Messy Details Surface
READ ALSO: Fresh Troubles For Emefiele As Senate Uncovers 13 Infractions In N30trn Ways And Means Loan
“This defendant ought not to be arraigned before this court on constitutional grounds.
“We are saying that charges against the first defendant are unconstitutional.
“I urge your lordship to toe the part of legality and constitutionality to determine this application.”
The Matrix reports that Emefiele was also accused of arbitrarily allocating foreign exchange in the “aggregate sum of $2,136,391,737.33 without bids, which act is prejudicial to the rights of Nigerians”.
Subsequently, the court granted Emefiele N50 million bail.
On April 12, Monday Osazuwa, an official of the CBN, told the court how he collected over $3 million in cash on behalf of Emefiele.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, counsel led by Mr Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, however, urged the court to dismiss the application of the first defendant counsel, as it was a course to delay justice.
Oyedepo said the application to prevent the trial is “unconstitutional and unlawful”, and that granting it amounts to “judicial rascality”.
“That approach is intended to take us back to where we are coming from as this was the basis for Section 1 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) and the purpose for which Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL) was intended,” he said.
“Our collective resolution as a nation was to to prevent undue delay in our criminal cases.
“This application to prevent the trial today is unlawful, illegal and unconstitutional and I urge the court not to depart from the decision of the apex court as to do so would amount to judicial rascality.”
After hearing the counsels’ arguments, Oshodi deferred ruling on the application to the final day of judgment.
