Just in: Defence counsel’s absence stalls Emefiele’s trial

The arraignment of the suspended Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Godwin Emefiele, was stalled on Wednesday morning due to the absence of the second defendant, Sa’adatu Yaro.

According to Yaro’s counsel, she took ill this morning which made her presence in court impossible

The lawyer asked for a new date for her appearance in court which the prosecutors, the Department of State Services (DSS) did not oppose.

August 23 was fixed for the arraignment by Justice of the Federal Capital Territory FCT High Court, Justice Muazu Hamza.

On Tuesday the Federal Government applied to withdraw the “illegal possession of firearms” case it filed against Emefiele, at the Federal High Court sitting in Lagos.

Meanwhile, Emefiele’s lead counsel, Mr. Joseph Daudu, SAN, said he was not aware of the alleged fresh charge, as it had not been served on the defence.

These disclosures were made after Justice Nicholas Oweibo of a Federal High Court sitting in Lagos, adjourned till August 17, 2023, to rule, after listening to arguments of Abubakar and Daudu, on FG’s plan to withdraw the two-count charge of illegal possession of firearms, for which  Emefiele is currently being prosecuted by the Department of State Service, DSS.

READ ALSO: Godwin Emefiele’s overdue desserts

It will be recalled that Justice Oweibo had on July 25, admitted Emefiele to bail and ordered his remand in prison custody until he perfects his bail, but was rearrested by the DSS.

He argued that the application was informed by new facts and circumstances that needed further investigations and urged the court to grant the application.

But Emefiele’s counsel, Daudu, opposed the oral application, arguing that because the government was in disobedience of the court’s order granting Emefiele bail, its application could not be taken.

He argued:  “There is no application before the court, there is no doubt and I am not disputing the facts that the state can withdraw any charge before the court against any person.

The court granted order of substituted service to be published in three national dailies and after they brought an application of stay of execution of the bail and we say unless they obey that order, section 174 (1) can only be by nolle prosequi.”