A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has held that the arrest warrant against Ezekiel Onyedikachukwu, a former Manager to gospel singer, Mercy Chinwo, is still subsisting.
Justice Alexander Owoeye made this known at the resumption of proceedings in the matter on Monday.
In documents put before the court, Chinwo had alleged that the defendant diverted the sum of 345,000 dollars representing royalty due to her.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had filed a three-count charge bordering on money laundering and fraudulent diversion of funds filed against him.
At a previous sitting of the court, the EFCC counsel, Bilikisu Buhari-Bala had told the court that the prosecution was unable to effect service of the charge on the defendant who had made himself unreachable.
The court subsequently granted the application of the EFCC and issued a warrant for the arrest of the defendant.
At the last sitting of the court on January 24, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Monday Ubani, had appeared for the defendant and sought to vacate the arrest warrant.
But the EFCC reminded the judge that the defendant was evading being served with the charge and this was the basis of the warrant.
The EFCC counsel then sought permission from the court to serve the defendant’s charge on his counsel.
Following the court’s nod, Buhari-Bala served the charge on Onyedikachukwu through his lawyer, Ubani.
The court then adjourned for the arraignment of the defendant.
When the case was called on Monday, Ubani again announced appearance for the defendant, while Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Rotimi Oyedepo appeared for the EFCC.
Ubani then informed the court that the case ought to be for the arraignment of the defendant, but that the defence had a notice of preliminary objection challenging the charge before the court.
The judge then asked the counsel, “Where is the defendant?”
In response, Ubani told the court that he received a call from the defendant, who said he had a terrible accident this morning. The counsel assured the court that the defendant will be available at the next adjourned date.
When Ubani sought to move and argue his objection, the judge declined to hear him until the defendant appears before the court.
Justice Owoeye held that the court had not assumed jurisdiction over the case since the plea of the defendant had not been taken.
On his part, the prosecutor, Oyedepo described the procedure adopted by the defence as strange. He cited section 396(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, as well as several judicial authorities and also urged the court not to hear the defence.
Oyedepo said, “My lord, it is a show of shame and outright disrespect of this court, for the defendant to be absent on three different occasions in a criminal trial.”
The prosecutor informed the judge that shortly after the court rose at the last adjourned date, the defendant was seen within the court’s premises, granting media interviews. He described it as a shame and complete dishonour to the court for a defendant to exhibit such an attitude.
Oyedepo also told the court that if actually the defendant was indisposed as represented by his counsel, then it ought to be deposed by way of affidavit, to serve as proof before the court.
In the circumstance, Oyedepo asked the court to issue a bench warrant to compel the attendance of the defendant before the court, adding that same is important to protect the integrity of the court.
Ubani countered by objecting to the request for a bench warrant. He undertook to personally produce the defendant at the next adjourned date.
In a short ruling, the judge held that from his records, an earlier bench warrant issued by the court still subsists as it had not been withdrawn.
The court consequently held that the defendant is to appear in court on the next adjourned date for his arraignment.
Based on the agreement of counsel, the court adjourned the case to March 6 for arraignment of the defendant.
