N28bn Arms Deal: Court Reserves Ruling on Yuguda’s Bail Application

  EFCC Press Release
 
Justice Peter Afem of the FCT High Court, sitting in Maitama, Abuja, has fixed Monday, December 21, 2015, for ruling on the bail application of former Minister of Finance, Bashir Yuguda, and five others.

Yuguda alongside  Col. Mohammed Sambo Dasuki( rtd.), a former National Security Adviser; Shuaibu Salisu, a former Director of Finance and Administration, Office of the National Security Adviser; Attahiru Dalhatu Bafawara, a former governor of Sokoto State; Sagir Attahiru, Bafarawa’s son and Dalhatu Investment Limited are being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, on a 22-count charge  bordering on conspiracy, bribery, abuse of office and criminal breach of trust to the tune of N28, 315, 000.000.

Count one of the charge reads: “That you, Col. Muhammed Sambo Dasuki( rtd.), whilst being the National Security Adviser and Shuaibu Salisu,  whilst being the Director of Finance and Administration in the office of the National Security Adviser,  between  14th April, 2014 and 7th  May, 2015 in Abuja, within the jurisdiction of the Honourable Court, entrusted with dominion over certain properties to wit: an aggregate sum of N3, 350, 000,000 (Three Billion, Three Hundred and Fifty Million Naira) being part of the funds in the account of the Office of the National Security Adviser with the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the said properties when you transferred same to the account of Dalhatu Investment Limited with United Bank for Africa Plc, purporting same to be payment for the supply of security equipment and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 315 of the Penal Code Act, Cap 532, Vol.4, LFN 2004.”

Moving his application for bail on Wednesday, December 16, 2015,  P.T. Akpe, SAN, counsel to the first defendant, Yuguda, urged the court to admit him (Yuguda) to bail pending the hearing or determination of the charges preferred against him.

Akpe also told the court that the first defendant was a respectable Nigerian who had a distinguished record of public service.

‘‘He is eager to clear his name of the charges, if he is granted bail. Besides, the offences, which have been preferred against him, are ordinarily bailable.  I, therefore, urge you, my Lord,  to grant the first defendant bail on liberal terms to enable him clear his name,’’ he added.

In his submission,  Ahmed Raji, SAN, counsel to the second defendant,  Dasuki, prayed the court to admit the defendant to bail on either self-recognisance or liberal terms.

Raji, who cited sections 32 sub-section 3, 158, 162, 163, 167 and 168 B of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 as well as Sections 35, 36 sub-section 5, 36 sub-section 6(b) of the 1999 Constitution as amended, urged the court to dismiss the content of the counter-affidavit deposed by the prosecution as mere speculation.

According to him, ‘‘It lacks any cogent proof. It is at best a cocktail of speculations. It is all salad of lies.  The prosecution claimed that the second defendant wired several millions of Naira to some foreign accounts and that he acquired properties abroad, but he failed to state the specific addresses of the alleged properties. My Lord, the second defendant is a retired military officer. The military is a profession of honour and for somebody who has risen to the position of a National Security Adviser, it only shows that he is a respectable man and will not run away from the course of justice, if he is granted bail.

‘‘In all cases of financial crimes, the theory of punishment is restitution and not imprisonment.  The defendant is not in court for murder, terrorism or any offence that attracts capital punishment. My Lord, restitution or disgorgement is easier when the accused is outside and not in confinement.’’

Also, while moving his application for bail on behalf of the third defendant, Salisu, the defence counsel, A. U. Mustapha prayed for an  order of the court admitting the defendant to bail pending the determination or hearing of the matter.

Mustapha, who supported his application with an eight-paragraph affidavit, a written address as well as further address to the counter-affidavit by the prosecution, told the court that the applicant was ready to stand trial against the charges preferred against him.

He described the applicant as a civil servant who had served his fatherland for 29 without blemish, adding that ‘‘he has been in detention for the past 31 days.’’

He pleaded with the court to also order the prosecutors to allow the third defendant to be reporting for any further investigation between 10am and 6pm, if he is granted bail.

Counsel to the 4th and 5th defendants, G.O. Olatoke,  told the court that the burden of  proof  weighed higher on the prosecution than on the defendants.

According to him, both the 4th and 5th defendants had given enough reasons that they would not jump bail, if they were granted bail by the court.

Moving his application for bail on behalf of the sixth defendant, H.O. Afolabi, SAN, told the court that the charges were bailable.

Afolabi, who argued that the prosecution should prove why the court should refuse the defendant bail, said: ‘‘He is a former state governor.  He was abroad when he learnt that his attention was needed by the EFCC, he took the next available flight to Nigeria and reported himself at their office. So, my Lord, I am at a loss why my learned colleague is saying that the sixth defendant will run away from justice, if he is granted bail.’’

However, the prosecution counsel, Rotimi Jacobs, SAN, while opposing the bail application by the defendants, told the court to dismiss the claims by all the counsel to the defendants that the contents of the prosecution counter-affidavits were speculative

He, therefore, urged the court to consider the merit of the submission, the nature of the offences as well as the gravity of the proof of evidence submitted before it.

‘‘Are the defence counsel saying that the charges preferred against the defendants, which could attract 14 years jail term, are not serious?  Even if they reported themselves to EFCC for investigation, there is a great incentive for them to jump bail now that they know the weight of the facts and evidence against them,’’ he added.

Jacobs, who pleaded with the court that granting bail  to the six defendants would send a wrong signal to the Nigerian public, further said:  ‘‘ Is it just fair to allow them to go on self-recognizance? My Lord, the public funds meant for buying security equipment to fight insurgency were diverted by the defendants and used for private purposes. Many soldiers have lost their lives because they were ill-equipped.

‘‘It is even a risk to release them now on bail. The society is aggrieved.  They should remain where they are and defend themselves.  The families of the soldiers who lost their lives are crying. My learned friends here know the truth.’’

Reacting to the submissions by the counsels to the second and third defendants, he said the fact that the defendants had occupied top positions in the society could make them interfere with the course of justice.

Jacobs, who described the case involving the six defendants as the first of its kind in Nigeria, said the first, second, third and sixth defendants, could intimidate the prosecution witnesses who had worked under them at different times, if they were granted bail.

He further urged the court not to entertain the claim of ill health advanced by both the fifth and sixth defendants on the grounds that they lacked sufficient proof.

According to him, ‘‘the  fifth defendant claimed that he had chronic ulcer and that he had been to several hospitals for treatment to no avail before he resorted to a native doctor in Ilorin, but he failed to show any evidence of this.’’

After listening to submissions by counsel, Justice Afem fixed Monday, December 21, 2015 for ruling on the bail applications and ordered the accused persons to be remanded in the EFCC custody.