A former Minister of Energy and Metal, Olu Agunloye, charged with six billion {dollars} Mambilla Hydroelectric plant fraud, has sought intervention of the Minister of Justice, Mr Lateef Fagbemi, SAN.
He additionally sought the intervention of the President, Nigerian Bar Affiliation (NBA), Yakubu Maikyau , SAN; a former Minister of Justice, Chief Kanu Agabi , SAN and, Joseph Daudu, SAN .
Agunloye is difficult the powers of the EFCC to prosecute him within the cost earlier than an FCT Excessive Courtroom.
The EFCC is prosecuting Agunloye, who served as a minister within the administration of former President Olusegun Obasanjo, on sure infractions relating to the Mambilla energy plant.
The previous minister is charged with forgery, disobedience of presidential order and corruption.
The EFCC accused the previous minister of awarding a contract for the development of three,960MW Mambilla Hydroelectric Energy Station on construct, function and switch foundation to Dawn Energy and Transmission Firm Restricted with none budgetary provision, approval and money backing.
The prosecution additionally alleged that it traced some suspicious funds made by Dawn Energy and Transmission Firm Restricted to the previous minister’s accounts.
The defendant, nevertheless, pleaded not responsible to the cost most well-liked in opposition to him.
On the resumed listening to of the case the prosecuting counsel, Abba Mohammed, knowledgeable the court docket that the case was slated for listening to of two motions filed by the defendant on variation of his bail situations and preliminary objection to the cost.
He informed the court docket that the prosecution had filed counter affidavits to the 2 motions.
Responding, counsel for Agunloye, Adeola Adedipe SAN, knowledgeable that he filed a contemporary movement on behalf of the previous minister, urging the court docket to ask amicus curiae, mates of the court docket, to be current whereas listening to the preliminary objection.
He added that the applying was particular and needed to be heard earlier than the preliminary objection could possibly be heard by the court docket.
Inspite of expressing the prosecution’s readiness for the defendant’s three movement to be heard, Adedipe insisted that the preliminary objection might solely be heard after the movement looking for amicus curiae is heard and decided.
Following the event, Justice Onwuegbuzie adjourned the case to March 21 for listening to Agunloye’s contemporary software.
Within the contemporary movement filed by Adedipe, Agunloye is looking for an order of the court docket for go away to listen to his preliminary movement on discover, filed on February 8, 2024, with movement quantity M/3736/2024, with the participation or contribution from Amici Curiae, a few of which ought to embody, the AGF; Maikyau; Agabi and Daudu.
He additionally seeks an order of the court docket inviting and/or requesting contributions from the aforelisted amici curiae and such different good friend(s) of the court docket which may be invited on the court docket’s discretion for the aim of listening to his preliminary movement on discover.
He cited that the movement was introduced pursuant to related provisions of the 1999 Structure (as amended) and the Administration of Prison Justice Act (ACJA).
Adedipe argued the court docket to grant the orders sought within the total curiosity of justice, sanctity of the Bench, preservation of the Structure and sustenance of the rule of legislation.
He hinged the applying on the grounds that the Supreme Courtroom ‘s determination on Nwobike vs FRN “weighs closely on the delimited energy of the EFCC underneath Sections 6,7 and 46 of the EFCC Act, 2004 to analyze and prosecute a case of this nature, extra notably as a result of EFCC was the prosecuting company within the mentioned determination”.
He additional mentioned amongst others, that regardless of the court docket arrives at, in respect of the preliminary movement on discover, “will challenge a serious check on the integrity of our courts, rule of legislation, sanctity/authority of the Bench, with far reaching results on the doctrine of judicial precedents and the administration of prison justice”.
Responding, the EFCC counsel, Mohammed, informed the court docket that the anti-graft company would reply to the contemporary movement filed by the defence.
