The former governor, alongside Umar Oricha and Abdulsalami Hudu, are being prosecuted as 1st to 3rd defendants respectively in the 16-count charge.
Oyedepo informed the court that at the last adjourned date, the court issued a public summons against the former governor directing that same be published and that the charge be pasted.
Justice Anenih, however, interjected, stating that she did not gave an order that the charge be pasted alongside the summons.
Oyedepo, who admitted, said he had expected the 1st defendant to be in court, even though the 30-day duration of the summons would be on Nov. 14.
The anti-graft lawyer therefore sought for adjournment until Nov. 14 for arraignment of the three defendants.
Joseph Daudu, SAN, who appeared for the 2nd defendant, objected to Oyedepo’s application.
The senior lawyer insisted that the matter was scheduled for arraignment today, and that they were ready to proceed, arguing that the defendants were all independent and should be so treated.
“You cannot be using somebody as a human shield when they are not in hostage. I don’t like this practice,” he said.
He said that if the prosecution was not ready to proceed with the case, the defendants who were already in court, should be discharged.
Mohammed Aliyu, SAN, who represented the 3rd defendant, aligned with Daudu’s submission.
Aliyu said in the alternative, he would be asking the court to take his client’s application for bail.
Oyedepo, however, disagreed with the defence.
He said that the application for bail could not be taken as the charge was a joint charge.
According to him, there are counts of conspiracy in it.
The lawyer, who insisted that the court should adjourn to Nov. 14, said there was an application for the enforcement of fundamental rights of the 2nd defendant which was also served on him.
He argued that the application for bail cannot be taken until their arraignment.
Daudu, however, argued that Oyedepo’s position negated the principles of fair hearing.
“His argument is persuasive but does not go by what the law says.
“That until one individual appears before they can be arraigned. I don’t understand this kind of practice.
“It is an affront to fair hearing because the privilege of fair hearing allows us to raise any issue. Keeping them for 10 years will have no impact.
“They have enjoyed administrative bail before with the EFCC, so it won’t hurt their pride if they give them,” he stated.
Besides, Daudu alleged that EFCC abused the court process when it obtained an order to remand the defendants at a magistrate court, even when the matter was already before the high court.
“That is the abuse,” he said.
The 2nd defendant’s counsel also asked for a date for fundamental rights application for his client.
Though the judge refused the oral application for bail, she said the defendants should come formally by filling applications in writing.
Justice Anenih therefore adjourned until Nov. 14 and Nov. 20 for response of the 1st defendant to summons and/or arraignment.
