The Judge had, on October 5, 2023, adjourned till November 3, 2023, the arraignment of Ibeto alongside Ibeto Energy Development Company and Odoh Holdings on 10-count charges bordering on obtaining by false pretences, fraudulent conversion of property, criminal breach of trust, forgery and deception, following an application and appeal by his lawyer, Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN.
Ikpeazu, while seeking an adjournment, had told the court that “the law is not a respecter of any person. I am of the firm view that this is a matter that can be resolved; and if given some time, it can be resolved.” The defence counsel further told the court that he had no medical report with him, in court, to explain the absence of the defendant, adding that the issue at stake was one that could be resolved between the complainant and the defendants.
Responding, prosecution counsel, Rotimi Jacobs, SAN, said though plea bargain was encouraged even in criminal matters, “the EFCC gave them the opportunity to go and resolve their differences, but they did not seize the opportunity, even before the charges were filed. “There should be an arraignment first before the court will assume jurisdiction to do anything”, he said.
After listening to both parties, Justice Ijelu, at the last sitting, expressed concerns that the defence counsel seemed to be trying to deceive the court. The Judge held that defendant could not be shielded from coming to court and adjourned till November 3, 2023 for arraignment of the defendants.
However, at Friday’s proceedings, Ibeto was, again, absent in court.
Jacob, who informed the court that the matter was for arraignment, recalled that the defendants had been absent at previous sittings on September 28, and October 5, 2023. “Your lordship will recall that on the 28th of September 2023, this matter came up for arraignment and my friend, Okoko, SAN appeared for the defendants and pleaded with my lord for adjournment till 5th of October 2023 to enable him produce the defendant.
Your lordship graciously granted the request. On the 5th of October , my learned brother silk, Ikpeazu, SAN, came and represented the defendants and also pleaded with your lordship for adjournment on the grounds that he wanted to talk to the prosecution to do plea bargain, and your lordship insisted that the defendant, whatever step to be taken, must be present in court. Today, the learned senior advocate did not appear. They now brought another counsel to, again, say that he is not in court”, he said.
Counsel for the defendants, D.A. Awosika, SAN, who apologized for the absence of his client, said that the defendant had an underlying ailment. He said: “I am not here to grandstand and I am not here to disrespect the court. The defendants will always come before the court to take their pleas. However, the position of the law is that when you have a criminal proceedings, it is bifurcated into two: there are proceedings before plea is taken; and there proceedings after plea is taken.” He, thereafter, argued that the defence had an application before the court challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear the case.
Citing several references, he argued that the application ought to be heard before the plea could be taken. “He is not running away from the court. He is not disrespecting the court. I am urging my lord to allow the defence to move its application challenging jurisdictiction”, he said.
Responding, Jacob noted that a similar argument was canvassed by the previous counsel, adding that “your lordship said that you will not take any objection until the court assumes jurisdiction first and sees that the arraignment takes place. It is then other applications can be taken”. He said, the references adduced by the defence, “were before the advent of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law, particularly at the Federal level, and adopted by the Lagos State Administration of Criminal Justice Law as amended.” Citing Section 374 of the ACJL Lagos State as amended, he argued that the defendant had to take his plea before the defendant could make any application or objection to the charges.
After listening to all the arguments, Justice Ijelu, in a terse ruling, held that the defendant must take his plea before any application could be taken. “The notice of preliminary objection filed in this case as referred by the defence counsel is challenging the jurisdiction of the court. The law is that jurisdictional issues can be raised at any time in the proceedings. However , the court is of the view that the question of jurisdiction should not be employed to delay the dispensation of justice. From the record of this court, it appears evident that an attempt is being made to shield the defendant from arraignment in this case under so many disguises. In the circumstance, the court holds that defendants have to take their pleas and thereafter bring their objection, which the court should consider along with the substantive issues and a ruling made”, he said.
Thereafter, Jacobs applied to the court for the issuance of a bench warrant for the arrest of the defendant. Awosika told the court that the defendant was old and had underlying health issues. He, therefore, raised an objection to the application, arguing that “there’s no basis for the bench warrant.”
The court, however, held that there was no cogent reason placed before the court for the continuous absence of the defendant.
The objection of the defence to the application for a bench warrant was, thereafter, dismissed by the trial judge.
Justice Ijelu held that “ the application for bench warrant succeeds, and this case is further adjourned till November 15, 2023 for arraignment.”