Abdulrasheed Maina, former chairman of Presidential Taskforce on Pension Reforms Committee and his son, Faisal, were on Friday arraigned by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
Maina in court on Friday
Maina was arraigned on a 12-count charge bordering on “money laundering, operating fictitious bank accounts and fraud.”
The anti-graft agency arraigned the Mainas at the Federal High Court, Abuja under heavy security.
Faisal was also arraigned in the same court on a separate but similar charge.
Maina and his son appeared in court dressed in white caftans and dark blue caps.
Justice Folasade Giwa-Ogunbanjo had on Tuesday ordered the temporary forfeiture of 23 property linked to Maina.
The affected property are located in Federal Capital Territory, FCT, Abuja; Kaduna, Sokoto, and Borno States.
The judge gave the order following an ex-parte motion filed by the EFCC.
Maina is accused of being involved in pension fraud running into over N100 billion.
The Federal Civil Service Commission dismissed him in 2013 for “absconding from duty” but he returned to the country in 2017 and was reinstated as a director in the interior ministry.
Following outrage, President Muhammadu Buhari ordered his dismissal and demanded a probe of his recall.
Maina and his son were arrested on September 30, 2019, at an Abuja hotel by the Department of State Services (DSS) and subsequently handed them over to the EFCC on October 2 for further investigation and prosecution on allegations of fraud and money laundering to the tune of N2.1 billion.
Before he was arrested by the DSS, Maina had previously evaded arrest.
Channels Television reported that Maina pleaded not guilty to the 12 charges preferred against him by the EFCC.
Following the no guilty plea, the prosecutor asked the court to proceed to trial, but the defendants counsel argued that there is a pending bail application filed since October 22 which is due for hearing.
He said the EFCC had earlier granted Maina administrative bail and the conditions were honoured.
The Prosecutor in response said the issue of bail being argued by the defendant amounts to jumping the gun as he applied for the matter to proceed straight to trial having served the parties with the hearing notice to enable them appear in court prepared for trial.
So, the issue of bail does not arise at the moment. He admitted receiving the notice of bail application filed by the defendant but refused to respond to it because it is incompetent and whenever a competent bail application is filed, he will vehemently oppose it.
The Prosecutor argued that the bail application is incompetent because it was filed before arraignment.
He submitted that the application filed on the 22nd of October, 2019 on behalf of Abdulrasheed Maina is incompetent and should be struck out.
Counsel to Maina, countered that the prosecutor cannot orally attack or impugn a summons for bail before a court.
He insisted that an objection of this nature ought to be in writing to enable the defense team respond appropriately.
On the issue of proceeding straight to trial, Ahmed Raji argues that in line with section 36 (6b) of the 1999 constitution as amended, a defendant is entitled to adequate time to prepare for his defense more so since there are 4 volumes of the charges running into 500 pages of each volume, the defendant needs time to prepare his defense.
He claimed that the EFCC has only allowed him to speak with his client just once for seven minutes since the charges were filed.
So the defendant needs time to consult with his lawyers. He said he will be unfair to his client to proceed straight to trial when there has not been room for adequate preparation.
The lawyer must be given room to interact with the defendant but claims that the seven minutes he had with Maina was done standing in the presence of EFCC operatives.
The Prosecutor argued that the bail application is incompetent because it was filed before arraignment.