An Abuja High Court has adjourned hearing in the case of alleged diversion of N19 billion by embattled former National Security Adviser, Sambo Dasuki, following the absence of his counsel. Proceedings in the trial of Col. Sambo Dasuki (retd.), a former National Security Adviser, and five others before Justice Hussein Baba-Yusuf of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court, sitting in Maitama, Abuja, could not continue on Thursday, January 21, 2016 due to the absence of the counsel to the first defendant, Ahmed Raji, SAN.
Dasuki( first defendant) alongside Shuaibu Salisu, a former Director of Finance and Administration, Office of the National Security Adviser; Aminu Babakusa, a former General Manager, Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation; Acacia Holdings Limited and Reliance Referral Hospital Limited are being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, on a 19-count charge bordering on money laundering and criminal breach of trust to the tune of N13, 570,000, 000.00( Thirteen Billion, Five Hundred and Seventy Million Naira).
At Thursday’s court session in one of his trials, counsel to Mr. Dasuki, Ahmed Raji, wrote to the court that he could not attend the sitting as he was attending to an election matter in another court.
In his address, Jacobs said: ‘‘ Counsel to the first defendant wrote a letter to me, saying that he won’t attend today’s proceedings on the grounds that he will be appearing before an election petition tribunal in Lokoja, Kogi State.’’
Jacobs further told the court why the prosecution could not produce the first defendant in court for trial as scheduled, adding that ‘‘when I inquired about the first defendant, I was told he is not in their (EFCC) custody. On further enquiry, I was told that he is with the Department of State Security.
We have, however, made moves to ensure that he is produced in court this morning. My Lord, they are bringing him to court this morning.’’
In response, counsel to the other defendants kicked against the motion moved by the prosecution counsel, maintaining that the plea for adjournment of the trial was at the instance of the prosecution.
According to Solomon Umoh, SAN, counsel to both the third and fifth defendants, ‘‘The prosecution should have ensured the presence of all the accused persons.
This adjournment is at his (Jacobs) instance. The court has to wait for him (Dasuki) before ruling on the adjournment. It is a criminal procedure and can’t be held in the absence of the accused person.’’
After listening to all the parties, Justice Baba-Yusuf stood down the matter for about an hour to enable the prosecution present the first defendant in court for the commencement of trial.
Following the arrival of the first defendant about 11.00a.m., prosecution counsel pleaded with the court to adjourn the matter to Friday, January 22, 2016 based on the request of the counsel to the first defendant.
Counsel to other accused persons did not raise any objection. Consequently, the judge adjourned the matter based on Mr. Raji’s absence. He said hearing in the matter would continue at 10am on January 22.