why the EFCC has to stop my new trial – Orji Kalu
On Monday, a branch of the Federal High Court of Abuja gave former Abia State Governor and Senate Chief Dr. Orji Kalu permission to challenge his re-examination by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on alleged money laundering charges.
As a result, Judge Inyang Ekwo ordered the suspension of the politician’s planned new trial on $ 7.1 billion money laundering charges until the legal issues raised against his retrial are resolved.
In an explicit motion made and argued by his lawyer, Professor Awa Kalu (SAN), Igbere TV reports that Senator Kalu has demanded a court order barring the EFCC from retrial with the same alleged money laundering charges against him.
He is satisfied that his court, convicted and convicted on the same charges FHC / ABJ / CR / 56/2007 by judge MB Idris, would pose a double danger if he was sent for a new trial on the same charge.
Judge Ekwo, in his ruling, granted Kalu permission to pursue a ruling outlawing the Federal Republic of Nigeria through the EFCC (his agent), his officers, servants, others, agents, individuals and any other natural or legal person in charge of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. authority, there is no re-attempt with a charge. FHC / ABJ / CR / 56/2007 between FRN v. Orji Kalu and 2 ors, or any other charge based on the same facts de novo, as there is no judgment and judgment of a competent court in Nigeria that would give the same powers.
An order prohibiting the Federal Republic of Nigeria, through the EFCC (its agent), its officials, employees, other persons, agents, individuals and any other natural or legal person who directs the power of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, from repeated attempts, harassment and intimidation connection with accusation no .: FHC / ABJ / CR / 56/2007 between FRN v. Orji Kalu and 2 ors or any other accusation based on the same facts, as he should not be at double risk.
The court also ordered the suspension of the proceedings pending consideration of the application.
Judge Ekwo, in his judgment, stated that the plaintiff, fully clothed in locus standi, had included sufficient material in his corroborating affidavit to ensure that the court acted on its own in his favor.
“Exemptions from liability are at the discretion of the court in accordance with Order 34 (2) of the Federal High Court. When granting permission, the applicant must present to the court sufficient material evidence to enable him to exercise his discretion in a judicial and reasonable manner.
“The allegations in the affidavit in support of the motion concern the plaintiff, who showed sufficient interest in dressing him with locus standi in order to bring a claim.
“Pursuant to section 34 (9) of the Constitution, no person who can prove that he has appeared before a court of jurisdiction or a court having jurisdiction over an offender and who has been convicted or acquitted will be tried again for that crime with the same corpus delicti to be served by order of a competent court. “
Meanwhile, the court gave Kalu seven days to present and notify the EFCC of the lawsuit, and updated the case to February 23 for a mention.
In his affidavit in support of his motion, Senator Kalu spoke about the historical context of the trial since his first judgment and new instance in 2016 and 2017 at the Abuja Federal High Court branch after the initial allegations were changed by the EFCC.
He also said that his motion to dismiss the charges was not accepted by the trial court, the Court of Appeal, or the Supreme Court.
Kalu told the court that following a request from the EFCC to the Chief Justice of the Federal High Court, the charge was transferred to the Lagos Court Branch and transferred to Judge M.B. Idris (now an appellate judge).
That during the transfer of the prosecution to Lagos, he covered the costs of transferring his entire legal team from Abuja to Lagos, including the cost of living before the trial.
Senator Kalu said the prosecution summoned a total of 19 witnesses at the trial and subsequently closed his case, demanding that he, along with other defendants, individually and accordingly submit an unfair submission.
He stated that, in the middle of the trial, Judge Idris was transferred to the Court of Appeal as a judge of the Court, and then was sworn in and sworn in allegiance on 22 June 2018 and lost his position as judge of the Federal High Court.
The applicant also described how, with the help of Fiat on 2 July 2018, issued by the President of the Court of Appeal, Judge Idris was ordered to return to the Federal High Court to conclude the trial, which was then partially heard in Cabinet No. : FHC / ABJ / CR / 56/2007, between FRN v. Orji Kalu and 2 ors.
That in his judgment of December 5, 2019, Judge Idris found him guilty and sentenced him on the existing charge.
After being convicted and sentenced, he was taken to Kuje Correctional Center, where he served part of his sentence, spending several days in Ikoya Correctional Center.
That on May 8, 2020 the Supreme Court with the verdict no. SC.62C / 2019, Ude Jones Udeogu v. FRN & 2 ors, stated that the trial of the applicant in the trial court was conducted without jurisdiction and therefore ordered a re-trial of the applicant (Udeh Jones Udeogu) without invoking him.
He argued that there was no order or order of a competent court governing his trial in Nigeria, owing to the fact that the Supreme Court had excluded him from an explicit re-trial order issued under charge no .: FHC / ABJ / 56/2007.
The undeniable position of the law is that no one who is brought before a court of jurisdiction or a competent court in a case of a crime and is found guilty or acquitted should not be tried again for this crime, which has the same constituent parts as the given crime, by order competent court.
The fact that his trial was invalidated by the Supreme Court in a ruling dated May 8, 2020 cannot authorize the EFCC to bring the same charge against him.
After hearing Awa Kalu (SAN), Judge Quo reserved the ring until Monday, 8 February 2021.
While Professor Awa Kalu (SAN) led Senator Kalu’s defense team, Chief Solomon Akuma (SAN) and KC Nwafor stood for Udeh Jones Udeogu and Slok Nigeria Ltd. respectively.
Meanwhile, the EFCC is demanding a transfer of proceedings from Abuja to the Lagos Judicial Branch.
When the case was resolved, the prosecutor, Mr. Chile Okoroma, informed the judge of his client’s letter requesting that the case be transferred to the Lagos Court Branch.
He said the request was based on a previous decision by the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal, which found that “there was no prosecution defense in Abuja”.
Therefore, Okoroma called on the court to postpone the consideration of the case for an indefinite period (sine dine) pending a decision by the chief judge.
However, the trial judge, Judge Inyang Ekwo, rejected the undefined update and appointed June 7 to report on the chief judge’s decision.