The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, on Friday ruled that a former Governor of Abia State, Dr. Orji Uzor Kalu, and one of his companies, Slok Nigeria, have a case to answer in the move by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission to prosecute them for alleged corruption.
The position of the Court of Appeal was made known by a panel of three justices, led by Justice Ejembi Eko, when it struck out the appeal by Kalu and Slok Nigeria contesting their prosecution by the EFCC.
The appellants had approached the appellate court to set aside the ruling of the Federal High Court that the former governor had a case to answer.
Some of the issues raised for determination by Kalu’s counsel, Awa Kalu (SAN), included the declaration by the Court of Appeal that the appellants were arraigned on non-existent law and that the proof of evidence did not disclose a prima facie case against the appellants.
Kalu further contended that since the Abia State High Court had issued an ex-parte motion on the matter, the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the case.
He also sought the leave of the appellate court to enforce his fundamental human rights by declaring his arrest, detention and arraignment a nullity.
Slok Nigeria sought similar leave.
They also wanted the court to determine whether the EFCC and the Federal Government were competent to prosecute a case involving the revenue of a state.
In a unanimous ruling read by Eko on behalf of Justices Kayode Bada and Regina Nwodo, the appellate court resolved all the grounds of appeal in favour of the respondent and dismissed the appeal for lack of merit.
Eko noted that the proof of evidence attached to the 97 count charge preferred against the appellants by the EFCC disclosed a prima facie case against them.
He further said that as far as there is a link, which prima facie is all about, the appellants had an obligation to stand trial to defend themselves.
He further ruled that the ex-parte order of May 31, 2007 by the Abia State High Court, asking the Federal High Court to stay all proceedings against Kalu was a suit aimed at frustrating his arrest and subsequent prosecution.
Eko said: “That order was an order at large, personal rather than definite. It was an order made as an ex-parte and not at the course of trial.”
He described the ex-parte motion as an abuse of court process.
Eko affirmed that the claim of breach of personal freedom by Kalu was sentimental in nature.
“This claim borders on the realm of conspiracy theory and is politically motivated. Right to personal liberty is not absolute,” the judge stated.
On whether the EFCC had the competence to charge the appellants, the court maintained that both the EFCC Establishment Act and the Money laundering and Prohibition Act (MPLA, 2003, 2004) had given the commission power to prosecute offenders.
“EFCC derives its competence to prosecute from Sections 6 and 7 of its Establishing Act.
“Equally, the definition of economic crime is quite wide,” the judge said.
In his reaction to the ruling, prosecution counsel, Rotimi Jacobs, expressed satisfaction with the judgment.
He noted that the Court of Appeal ruling had vindicated his position that the Abia State High Court Order was intended to protect Kalu from prosecution and exposed the hollowness of the position of the former Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Michael Andoakaa, that the order must be obeyed.
The EFCC had on July 27, 2007 arraigned Kalu before an Abuja High court on a 107 count charge of money laundering, official corruption and criminal diversion of public funds totaling over N5 billion.
On August 5, 2007 Kalu, wrote a letter to late President Umaru Yar’Adua, urging him to order the EFCC to discontinue the trial, complaining that the commission failed to obey a May 31, 2007 Abia State High Court order for stay of proceedings pending the determination of a motion before it.
Yar’Adua, replying through Aondoaaka, promised Kalu that the Abia State High Court ruling would be respected.
On September 3, 2007 Kalu filed a motion at the Abuja High Court asking for an order to strike out all EFCC charges against him and to vacate the terms and conditions of the bail earlier granted by the court.
During the September 5, 2007 hearing of Kalu’s motion, an attorney from the AGF’s office, appearing for Aondoakaa, urged the court to comply with the Abia State High Court ruling.
Earlier, both the EFCC lawyer and Aondoaaka’s representative clashed over which of them had the power to prosecute Kalu’s case.
The matter was resolved in favour of the AGF.
During the course of the trial, one Chief Eze Gaius Ihejiamaizu, who was then the Chairman of Abia Council of Ezes, stood as one of Kalu’s sureties but eventually withdrew his surety.
He said in his application that he wanted to be discharged from the obligation because he no longer has confidence in the 1st accused person and will not stand as surety for him anymore.
Ihejiamaizu said: “That for now, the 1st accused and myself have not been associating with each other and I can no longer vouch for him being unaware of his movements and action.
“That it would be in the interest of justice to discharge me as a surety to the 1st accused person and return my said certificate of recognition to me.”