×

Hembe Vs EFCC: Court to rule on its jurisidiction in July

A Federal High Court in Abuja has reserved ruling in a preliminary objection filed by the former Chairman of the House of Representatives’ committee conducting … Continue reading Hembe Vs EFCC: Court to rule on its jurisidiction in July


A Federal High Court in Abuja has reserved ruling in a preliminary objection filed by the former Chairman of the House of Representatives’ committee conducting a public hearing on the near collapse of the Capital Market, Herman Hembe and his deputy Ifeanyi Azubogu, challenging charges of corruption filed against them by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

The presiding judge, Justice Abubakar Sadiq Umar fixed ruling in the application for 2 July after hearing arguments of lawyers to the lawmakers.

The anti-graft agency alleged that Mr Hembe and his deputy, converted to their own use the sum of $4,095 ,about N600,000 given to them by the Securities and Exchange Commission  as travelling allowance to a conference in Dominican Republic in October last year.

The two lawmakers filed an application asking the court to decide if it had jurisdiction and if the charges against the accused persons could be sustained by the prosecution.

But counsel to the EFCC, Mr Ojeifo Obe told the court that counsel to the accused misled by the court at its last proceedings when he said that the applications filed on behalf of the accused were to be taken before they take their plea

The lawmakers counsel argued that the judge did the right thing by allowing their application opposing the trial of the accused persons.

After listening to the arguments of the two parties, Justice Abubakar Umar ruled that the court was right to allow the objection as jurisdiction is the foundation on which a case is built.

Done with the preliminary arguments, the judge asked the parties to address the court on the objections filed by the two accused persons.

Counsel to Mr Hembe asked the court to quash the charges against his client and set him free of all charges because the proof of evidence provided by the prosecution admitted that the Director –General of the Securities and Exchange Commission made the allegations to divert public attention from the capital market probe.

He argued that what his client received was estacode for a trip he undertook which does not constitute any crime or breach of public service laws.

Counsel to Mr Azubogu also argued that his client returned the money to the SEC through the clerk of the national assembly, but the commission returned the money to his client. He added that this did not constitute any crime, as he told the court that the commission did not make available a report of its investigation showing that it only acted on hearsay.

EFCC rejected the arguments of the defendants as counsel to the anti-graft agency told the court that the only application before the court was to prove that the lawmakers have a case to answer and that it will await the ruling of the court.

Justice Umar adjourned the case to July the 5th to rule on the preliminary objections of the lawmakers to the charges of corruption.