Saturday, February 9, 2013

CONSPIRACY TO RIP US OFF : N93m bribe: Lawan, Emenalo get bail

An Abuja High Court yesterday granted bail to the former Chairman of House of Representative Ad Hoc Committee on fuel subsidy, Farouk Lawan, and the secretary of the committee, Boniface Emenalo. The two men have been in held in prison for about a week.
They are being prosecuted by the Federal Government for collecting $620, 000 (N93 million) as bribe from business man, Femi Otedola, to remove his company, Zenon Oil, from the list of indicted companies.
Justice Mudashiru Oniyangi in his ruling on the bail application by defense counsel, Ricky Tafa (SAN) held that  granting bail is a judicial discretion which must be exercised based on facts and circumstances.
He said the prosecution counsel, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) did not controvert the facts of the affidavit in support of the application that the accused persons will not undermine the trial.
He consequently ordered Lawan and Emenalo to deposit  N10 million as bail bonds with two sureties in like sum.
While barring the embattled lawmakers from travelling oversea without the court’s permission, he further ordered them to deposit their international passports with the court’s registrar.
The accused persons were on Friday, February 1, this year remanded at Kuje Prison after the judge observed that the bail application and authorities cited for and against required careful consideration.
The two had earlier pleaded not guilty to a seven-count charge brought against them by the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF).

"In granting the bail plea, the trial judge noted that the offence for which the suspects were charged was not ordinarily bailable" going by Section 341(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
According to the code, any offence that has three years and above as punishment is ordinarily not bailable. Justice Oniyangi, however, chose to admit them to bail because the prosecution did not file any counter affidavit to controvert the facts deposed to by the accused.
Justice Oniyangi held that "before the court will arrive at a judicial and judicious decision on the issue of bail, the affidavit evidence of the parties must be considered."
The judge said the accused persons had deposed to an affidavit, which the prosecution did not oppose, and that the court must take those facts deposed to - but not controverted - as true.
"Paragraph 15 of the accused applicant affidavits stated that he would not in any way interfere with the trial and that he would not commit any offence, will comply with the bail conditions imposed on him and be always available to stand trial.
"Under Section 341(3) of CPC, the averment had fulfilled the provisions for the granting of a bail. In the absence of any counter affidavit, the court is left with no option than to accept the affidavit of the accused persons as true and act on them.
"Consequently I have come to a conclusion that this is a proper circumstance, the court can act judicially and judiciously particularly when prosecution has not controverted the facts deposed to by the accused persons. I hereby overrule the objection of the prosecution and allow the application for bail," .... ruled Justice Oniyangi.

No comments:

Post a Comment