T front page comment he intention of Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) of 2015, which empowers judges to conclude criminal matters even when such judges had been elevated to higher court, no doubt, is to ensure that criminal cases are given accelerated hearing with a view to fast-tracking scale of justice and ensuring cases are concluded within reasonable time. But ACJA 2015, which gives a fiat to judges even if they had been elevated to higher court to conclude part-heard matters within a reasonable period of time, may open to abuse in view of some development in the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) vs. Orji Uzor Kalu and others. In a case being presided over by Justice Mohammed Idris of the Federal High Court, who doubles as a Court of Appeal Justice-designate, Orji Uzor Kalu, a former governor of Abia State between 1999 and 2007 and two others are facing criminal prosecution for allegedly violating Money Laundering Act of 1995 as amended by the Amendment Act No. 9 of 2002 and Section 477 of the Criminal Code Act, Laws of the Federation, 1990. Kalu allegedly committed the criminal offence some 11 years ago while at the helms as Abia State governor. Kalu and his co-accused persons had pleaded not guilty to the alleged criminal offence.

 

In May, EFCC had told the court that it had closed its case after it called about 18 witnesses to prove the alleged criminal case against Kalu and others. But three months after, on July 16, 2018, EFCC made a detour and informed the court of a “second further amended charge” on which it asked the court to order the accused persons to take their pleas.

 

Although Kalu was undaunted because of his determination to prove his innocence, his lawyers – Mr. Awa Kalu (SAN), Chief Solo Akuma (SAN) and Mr K. C. Nwofo (SAN) – not minding Kalu’s resolve to face trial, opposed the 39-amended count charge on the grounds that it was not done in accordance with the provisions of the law. They urged the court to refuse the amended charge.

 

Instead, Justice Mohammed Idris, JCA while interpreting provisions of Sections 216 and 217 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, said that the prosecution had powers to amend the charge.

 

The judge specifically ruled that an alteration of a charge can be allowed at any time, just as he asked Kalu and others to enter the witness box for the new charge in order to proceed with trial as no one had powers to shut out EFCC from filing a second amended charge, especially when the defence did not show that the amendment would be prejudicial to it.

 

Kalu was again re-arraigned alongside others on the new charges as ruled by Justice Idris and they again each pleaded not guilty while the judge allowed them to continue with the bail earlier granted them. Following this development, Kalu’s lawyers initiated a “no case submission” and they served same on EFCC, which in turn, filed a written address in reply. This was again to demonstrate that Kalu and other accused persons were ready for trial, at least to clear their names.

 

The judge fixed further trial for July 25, 2018, to hear addresses on the “no case submission.”

 

All through stages of trial, it is on record that for 23 hearings, Kalu did not miss court appearance for once until the former governor took ill penultimate week, making his appearance in court difficult. This, we believe, the court should treat with absolute neutrality and the principle of fair hearing with a hindsight that only the living can stand trial. Besides, while we do not believe that a case, which ought to last three months, now drags for years in court, it is also a judicial haraki ri to compel a sick litigant, by way of arrest as being done by Justice Idris, to face trial.

 

A judge of Lagos High Court, now a Justice of the Supreme Court, was equally faced with this scenario when a former member of the House of Representatives, Morris Ibekwe, died while facing criminal prosecution on the grounds that the court did not believe he took ill until he died.

 

It is a fact that after Ibekwe’s death, the case against him also died. Kalu, who had resolved to not only face his trial, but prove his innocence, chose to take care of his health so he could be fit for trial, should not be adjudged as jumping bail when facts were before his prosecutor that he was in Germany, where a German hospital, after surgical operation, said the former governor needed 12 to 13 weeks to recuperate. This is obviously where Justice Idris got it wrong when he revoked a subsisting bail being enjoyed by Kalu and other accused persons without considering absolute obedience to court proceedings, which Kalu had complied with 23 times.

Obviously, if Kalu is not fit for trial, the case can’t continue. One will begin to express worry on why the court and EFCC assumed the former governor jumped bail when facts and particulars of his trip to a German hospital were before them. The question is: Since Kalu was rushed to the German hospital and the facts were open to both EFCC and the court, why did they refuse to contact the hospital but chose to revoke his bail? Thus, we want to believe that the principle of fair hearing is no longer in operation as a clear case of bias has taken over the entire trial.

 

Kalu is not in hiding as his medical trip was endorsed by EFCC, especially when his trial was, in September, adjourned sine die. He could not have been accused of jumping bail when the German Embassy has already verified that he was in one of the nation’s hospitals. While we commend Justice Idris for his dedication and inability to join his colleagues at the Court of Appeal following fiat to conclude some cases before him, including Kalu’s, it is not enough for the judge to display desperation and bias in the trial of the former governor as demonstrated in revoking Kalu’s bail. In as much as he is desperate to join his colleagues at the Court of Appeal, Justice Idris must allow a balance of the scale of justice instead of his open display of bias in the matter.

 

With the revocation of Kalu’s bail and allegation of bias against the judge, the honourable thing for Justice Idris to do is to recuse himself from the case. Kalu is not running away from prosecution; he has also resolved to prove his innocence as demonstrated in his obedience to proceedings, which he had not missed since his trial began. It is time we allowed due process and fair hearing to take over the trial and not given to a desperate plot to convict Kalu on the altar of miscarried justice

https://www.newtelegraphng.com/2018/11/kalus-bail-revocation-where-justice-idris-got-it-wrong/

Ok