Confusion in case over looted Daily Times’ assets

Eric Ikhilae

A confusing dimension has been added to the case instituted against

some purported directors of the defunct Daily Times of Nigeria Plc.

Justice Charles Achibong of the Federal High Court, Lagos last week acted unusually when he gave a judgment, quashing a charge pending against the said directors before another judge, Justice Pat Ajoku, of the same court.

The directors include Fidelis Anosike, his brother, Noel, their associates: Nicholas Okoye and Gogo Kurubo and their company, Folio Communications Limited.

The Federal Government had last year, upon realising that the Anoskes and others were allegedly involved in the unlawful sale of some Daily Times’ assets estimated at about N3billion, filed the charge in July. It was later assigned to Justice Ajoku for trial. This was shortly after Justice Okechukwu Okeke, also of the Federal High Court, Lagos, voided the sale of its majority stake in Daily Times to Folio, holding that the process of sale was illegitimate.

Since then, the case had witnessed several dramas, resulting in adjournments. At every proceeding, the accused persons were always absent, but represented by a team of lawyers always led by a Senior Advocate of Nigeria.

When asked by the judge why their clients were absent, the defence lawyers would always promise to secure their presence at the next date.

At a point late last year, the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Mr. Mohammed Adoke (SAN) even attempted to withdraw the charge, a move Justice Ajoku rejected on the ground that the attempted withdrawal was not informed public interest, the interest of justice and the need to prevent abuse of legal process.

The court acknowledged the AGF’s unquestionable privilege to exercise such power of discontinuance, as provided for in section 174 (1) (C), but held that he must fulfill the conditions precedent for the application of discontinuance as provided in sub-section three of the section.

Justice Ajoku observed that the prosecution was acting without the consent and cooperation of the complainant in the case. The judge held that the practice was that the complainant and prosecution ought to be in harmony in the trial of criminal cases, noting that it was different in this case.

Earlier this year, the AGF made a u-turn, pledging to prosecute the case on the ground that he had realised there was the need to proceed against the accused persons.

Mr Akin Akintinwe, who represented the AGF, said his boss had instructed him to ensure the commencement of the trial of the accused persons.

Akintinwe, an Assistant Director in the Office of the AGF, said the directive was necessitated by the conclusion of investigation by the Police and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on the case.

Defence lawyer, Mr. Babajide Koku (SAN) objected to the commencement of the trial, claiming that his clients were absent in court because they had not been served with the charge, a claim denied by the prosecution.

The judge went through her records and discovered that the accused were served

"The court takes judicial notice that the first day the matter was called, the accused persons were represented in court. Please let’s get on with this matter. It is either they are guilty or not guilty. The matter should go on, "the judge said.

She later directed the defence lawyer to ensure that his clients attend court on the next date and adjourned to February 21 for arraignment.

On the said date, the accused persons were not only absent as usual, they sprang a surprise by changing their lawyers. They were represented by Olisa Agbakoba (SAN) and Norrison Quakers who though works in Agbakoba’s chambers, also announced appearance for some of the accused persons.

Agbakoba (SAN) while justifying the accused persons’ absence, queried the pattern of service of the charges on them. Agbakoba and Quakers argued that the service was improper and urged the court to set it aside.

Akin Akintewe for the prosecution, opposed the defence’s position and noted that the accused persons have consistently had legal representation at every proceeding but, yet denied being served with the charges.

He wondered how the defence lawyers became aware of the case if they were not served with the charge.

Justice Ajoku, in a short ruling set aside the earlier service, ordered fresh service of charges on the accused persons and fixed March 24 for their arraignment.

Rather than wait for the said date, the accused persons raced before Justice Achibong with an application filed on March 3 in which they complained among others, of being unduly persecuted, claiming that the charge was not served on them but that they only read about it in the media.

On March 8, in the absence of the AGF, who was named as respondent, Justice Achibong heard Quakers moved and argued the application. He delivered a judgment on the same day, in which he upheld Quakers’ argument and quashed the charge.

This development has thrown the prosecution and the complainants, who are also investors in Daily Times in confusion as they querried whether a judge possesses the power to quash a charge pending before another judge of equal jurisdiction.

They are also not sure how Justice Ajoku, who perhaps, is unaware of this development, would react on March 24.