|
N9bn Scam
: Bankole Has A Case To Answer,
EFCC Insists
Newsdiaryonline Mon
Oct17,2011
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC on October
17, 2011, told a Federal High Court, sitting in Abuja and
presided over by Justice Donatus Okorowa that a former Speaker
of the House of Representatives, Dimeji Bankole, standing trial
on a 16 count charge bordering on contract inflation and
fraudulent embezzlement of public funds totaling N9billion, is
in breach of certain sections of
the Procurement Act and therefore has a case to answer.
EFCC counsel, Festus
Keyamo, urged the court to dismiss two motions brought by
Bankole’s counsel, Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN seeking to quash the
charges against him and to disqualify Keyamo from prosecuting
the case. While moving his motion, Keyamo pointed out that
Sections 57 and 58 of the Procurement Act clearly emphasized
that ‘all other
parties’ other than those mentioned such as contractor and
procurement officers, can be prosecuted within that provision.
He further argued that parties to the offence can be those that
have the authority to stop the commission of a crime,
as in the case of Bode George and others. “My Lord there
is a striking similarity between this case and that of Bode
George because the same arguments were made for them stating
that they were not procurement officers but board members. Our
argument then and even now, is that Section 7 of the criminal
Code recognizes other parties who in one way or the other may
have aided or abetted a crime.”
Keyamo, while replying to the issue of showing two prices,
stated that the prosecution detailed out,
in its charges,
the two prices that were contradictory and has been
generous and magnanimous in its proof of evidence so as not to
be seen as persecutors but prosecutors.
He equally noted some
loopholes in the defence arguments concerning his
disqualification as a prosecutor, saying that such has exposed
their inability to
support their claim of ‘personal bias ‘from their affidavit.
He said that his petition to the National Assembly which
they cited as a proof of his ‘bias’ was clear on its intention
which stated that the former Speaker was not being accused of
any financial impropriety but was being asked for explanation to
Nigerians on his
role in the matter. Keyamo also said that he had written a
similar letter to another former Speaker Ghali Na’aba as far
back as 2005 seeking an explanation on a national issue which
clearly shows that there was no personal interest in the matter.
Keyamo also stated that the law does not question in explicit
language the impartiality of prosecution but that of the
tribunal. “The court’s role is to hold the scale. In fact, if a
prosecutor does not believe in the guilt of the accused person,
there is no need taking the brief. Impartiality in this regard
as they want to put it means I do not have a mind and this is
not correct.” He pointed out that even if they want to argue on
partiality or otherwise of the prosecutor, it should not have
come now when the accused person has taken his plea. “My lord it
is too late in the day to raise this objection because what
qualifies the prosecutor to prefer a charge qualifies him also
to proceed with the trial . Why didn’t
they raise it before taking of plea or even filing of
charge”, he questioned.
He said that all the motions by Bankole were subterfuges
to truncate the trial.
Bankole had on June 13, and July 26, 2011 respectively filed two
separate motions seeking the court to quash the case against him
on the ground that the proof of evidence did not disclose any
shred of criminality against him and on another ground that
Keyamo, the EFCC counsel, should be disqualified from
prosecuting the case as he has through his antecedents, shown
that he is biased and impartial towards the accused
person.
Awomolo, while making his submissions posited that under Section
58(4a) of the Public Procurement Act, offences can only be
committed by specified person namely contractors, suppliers and
procurement officers and that his client is none of the
aforementioned.
On the issue of Keyamo’s disqualification, Awomolo stated that
the office of prosecution is a public institution instituted for
public interest and interest of justice. He said a criminal
prosecutor must generate public confidence and that Keyamo by
his known public condemnation of the accused person, cannot be
impartial in handling of the case. “Keyamo wants to prove a
point to Bankole that even though the House has cleared him, he
(Keyamo) will show him ‘pepper’ in court. He should distance
himself from prosecuting a case he has shown bias, prejudice and
commitment as an activist;”
Count one of the 9 count charge against Bankole who was
arraigned on Wednesday, June 8th, 2011 reads that “That you,
Dimeji Bankole and others now at large on or about 28th of May,
2008, within the jurisdiction of Federal High court, being body
of principal officers of the house of representatives for the
approval of contracts in the house of representatives, with
intent to defraud, did conspire amongst yourselves to inflate
the cost of 400 units of 40-inch Samsung [LNS.341] television
sets. By approving the purchase of said items at the rate of
N525,000 per unit, instead of prevailing market price of
N295,000 and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section
58[4][a] of the public procurement Act No. 14 of 2007 and
punishable under Section 58[5] of the same Act”.
The case has been adjourned to December 19, 2011, for ruling on
the applications.
|
