The Federal government yesterday insisted before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), that Senate President, Dr Bukola Saraki has a case to answer in the false assets declaration charge it brought against him.
Prosecution counsel, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), made the submissions after the Senate president urged the tribunal to dismiss the charge on the ground that no prima facie case has been established against him.
In adopting his written addresses before the tribunal yesterday, lead defence counsel to Saraki, Kanu Agabi (SAN), said the petition which gave rise to the charges had nothing to do with his client.
Specifically, Agabi said the charges, especially counts 1, 2, 6, 9,10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 16, had disclosed no valid offences.
He said, “Our submission is that the prosecution has not made out a case warranting an answer from the defendant is dated May 21, 2017, and filed on May 26, 2017.
“Our reply on point of law is dated June 7, 2017.
“Let me elaborate very briefly as follows:
“We were told by the prosecution that the charges were precipitated by petitions tendered as exhibits 10, 11, 12, and 13.
“My lord should read the petitions. We beg your lordship to read them, they have nothing to do with the defendant.
Agabi continued: “Let us assume the petitions were investigated, where is the report? Who are the writers? Why are they not here?
“The second point is that in counts 1, 2, 6, 9,10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 16, the defendant was charged with ‘making false declaration by making no declaration’.
“There is inconsistency in the charges.
“I urge your lordship to hold that is not an offence.”
The lead defense lawyer further argued that by the provision of the status, only an authorized person could declare the statement of a public officer to be false.
He further submitted that the failure of the prosecution to disclose the name of the said authorized persons in the charges had rendered the charges invalid.
He faulted the evidence by the prosecution witnesses, Mr. Samuel Madojemu, an official of the Code of Conduct Bureau, and another operative of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, Mr. Michael Wetkas, saying they all amounted to hearsay evidence.
But responding to the no-case submission, the prosecution counsel, Jacobs maintained that it has established a serious prima facie case against the Senate President.
Jacobs said, “Our response to the no-case submission is dated June 2, 2017 and filed the same day.
“One method your lordship should adopt to show that there is serious prima facie case against the defendant is to look at Exhibits 6 and 26 which are assets declarations made by the defendant after the investigation of this case.
“My Lordships will see that the defendant listed all the annexed properties and stated that they were acquired in 92 and 99 and, now. If my lord juxtaposes them with Exhibits 1 to 5, some of the properties he claimed acquired in 1999, 2002, and 2003, were not declared.”
In urging the tribunal to dismiss the no-case submission, he argued that the defendant had “misconstrued” Paragraph 1, Schedule 5 of the Constitution, by claiming that a public officer was not under obligation to declare properties bought in companies’ names.
“To construe the constitution like that will defeat the essence of the CCT and the fight against corrupt in Nigeria,” Jacobs said.
The prosecution further attacked the arguments advanced by Saraki’s lawyer that the charge were anchored on the contents of some petitions which have nothing to do with him.
He told the tribunal that contrary to the position of the defense counsel, Saraki’s name was mentioned in the petitions.
In any case, Jacobs submitted that even if the claim was true, petitions had no role to play in prosecution.
“In his address, counsel to the defendant said the petitions had nothing to do with the defendant, although his name is mentioned.
“Prosecution does not depend on petition. Without a petition, a person can be prosecuted.”
On the issue of “failure to declare by not declaring does not constitute an offence”, Jacobs said, “We have shown in paragraphs 4.25 to 4.27 that till now, they have not told the tribunal the ingredients of the offence.
“Failure to disclose an asset amounts to false declaration which is an offence. The learned counsel cannot be right on that.”
“They said we ought to call 200 witnesses and they listed them. They brought it ought up as a new issue started re-adjusting their argument. This cannot be done.”
Jacobs further submitted that the tribunal is not expected to evaluate the evidence, or give an opinion on the witnesses at this stage of the proceedings, as the tribunal was being invited to do by the defense.
He said the 120-page address filed by the defense was also an invitation to the tribunal to write a lengthy ruling against the admonition of the Supreme Court to courts handling a no-case submission.
Jacobs said, “At this stage, care must be taken about what my Lord can do at this stage. They were inviting your lordship to give an opinion on the witnesses and evaluate their evidence.
“The Supreme Court has said your lordship cannot do that at this stage.
“At the stage, your lordship cannot express opinion on the evidence led until they defense give their own evidence.
“The Supreme Court warned that the ruling on a no-case submission must be kept brief.
“It is permitted to just say there is case to answer.
“The Supreme Court said, where a lengthy ruling was delivered an observation would be made on the facts and the prosecution would be right to appeal on the grounds that the judge is biased.”
No comments