The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) yesterday arraigned the former chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Capital Markets and Institutions, Hon Herman Hembe and his deputy, Emeka Azubuogu, for alleged diversion of fund.

They are facing a two-count charge of diversion of public funds slammed against them before a Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court.

Justice Sadiq Umar, at the last sitting, dismissed their preliminary objection to the charge.

The accused yesterday pleaded not guilty to the charge and the Judge granted them N1 million bail and with one surety in like sum each.

The sureties, according to the judge, must be resident in Abuja, while the Registrar of the court will verify compliance with the bail conditions.

Ruling on the oral bail application, Justice Sadiq held: “It is settled that bail is a constitutional right of an accused and the burden of denying accused persons bail lies with the constitution.

“The prosecution has not strictly led before me why the accused persons should not be granted bail…In my view, there is no justification for not allowing the accused persons to continue enjoying their administrative bail granted by the EFCC.

“I hereby grant the accused persons bail in the sum of N1 million each with two sureties in like sum; the sureties must be responsible citizens living in Abuja and that must be verified by the Registrar of the court.”

Prosecuting counsel, Jeff Ojeifu, prayed the court to disregard the administrative bail granted the accused by the EFCC and remand Hembe and Ifeanyi in prison custody. This was shortly after they pleaded “not guilty” to the charge.

He urged the court “to take judicial notice of the rampancy of corruption in the country and order for their remand”, saying, “the issue of presumption of innocence does not apply at this stage of the trial.”

Hembe’s counsel, Mr. Jibrin Okutepa (SAN) and that of Azubuogu, Chief Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), argued that the alleged offences are bailable.

Okutepa urged the court to take judicial notice of the fact that the EFCC has granted the accused persons administrative bail without any stringent conditions attached to it, having been convinced that they are responsible citizens and would not interfere with investigations.

The motion was brought pursuant to Sections 340 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) and Section 35 of the 1999 constitution (as amended), which presume an accused innocent until the contrary is proved.

He said: “This is a proper case for your Lordship to admit the accused persons to bail even suo motu and affirm that they should remain on bail on the same condition and terms they were allowed by the EFCC. EFCC’s prayer will be urging the court to persecute rather than prosecute and I urge the court to reject that.”

Adopting Okutepa’s argument, Ikpeazu urged the court to exercise bail discretion on the reasons that, “the nature of the offence before the court is bailable, the accused person is presumed innocent, the probability of the accused appearing for trial and the fact that there cannot be interference since investigation has been concluded.”

The EFCC called five witnesses yesterday.

The first Prosecution Witness (PW 1), who gave his name as Austin Adachi, a Senior Detective Superintendent with the EFCC, said investigation revealed that $4,095 was collected by each of the accused persons to attend a conference in Dominican Republic, which they did not attend.

He, however, added that, “available documents during investigation showed that the 1st accused person actually travelled” within the period.

Another witness, Usman Ibrahim, an Accounting Officer with SEC, told the court that the refund of unspent estacodes is not time-bound.

The two suspects allegedly converted to their own use $4095 each, about six hundred thousand Naira given to them by the SEC as traveling allowance to a conference in Dominican Republic in October, 2011.

The offence is contrary to section 308 of the Penal Code Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

The accused persons have filed a no case submission, which the court adjourned till October 8 for adoption.