LAGOS—ONE of the suspects standing trial in the on-going Advance Fee Fraud case before a Lagos High Court, Ikeja, Nzeribe Okoli, yesterday urged the court to admit him to bail on ground of ill-health.
However, the prosecution counsel, Mr. Rotimi Jacobs, urged the court to discountenance the bail application, saying the accused person if granted bail would not appear for trial owing to the grievous offences they have committed. He therefore requested for accelerated hearing of the matter.
Mrs. Amaka Anajemba, Emmanuel Nwude and the applicant, Nzeribe Edeh Okoli and four companies are standing trail for allegation of fraudulently enriching themselves to the tune of $242 million dollars in 1995.
Moving his application for bail before Justice Joseph Oyewole, Okoli through his counsel, Mr. Amobi Nzelu, noted that the issue of bail which had been argued earlier by counsel representing the other accused persons (Nwude Anajemba) is a constitutional issue which enjoys constitutional favour.
According to him, “the rise and fall of this application is hinged on section 35 and section 36 of the 1999 constitution and other subsidiary facts in granting of bail and the previous decisions as related to bail.
Nzelu said “Section 35 depends on the power of the court to grant bail to the applicant. This is to say if the Federal Government want to deprive this applicant his rights under section 35 of the constitution, it must fulfill the obligation of Section 34 of the Constitution.
“That is, it must be brought before the court at a reasonable time. If somebody is charged on a capital offence and he is on remand, the trial must be done within two months.”
To this end, the counsel submitted that “the third accused person (Okoli) was first arrested on June 3, 2003, kept in the custody of the respondent up till July 14, 2003, when granted bail by the respondent (EFCC).
He stated further, that Okoli was only kept in the custody without proper arraignment, which was depriving him his constitutional rights to freedom, adding “the power to grant bail is purely the discretion of the court.”
“The right of an accused person to enjoy bail is a constitutional rights and such rights are inviolable. Even if they are still investigating a matter, they have power to grant bail, this they did not do,” he submitted.
Nzelu, listed conditions which the court needs to consider in granting bail to include “the affidavit evidence before the court and the antecedent of the case.”
He stated further that: “Even though the court is allowed to look into the proof of evidence of the case, it should not weigh evidence now because trial has not started.
Arguing on the health condition of the accused person, the counsel said: “the applicant is sick and has 10 children, where would he run to at this stage? He would not jump bail and would not interfere in the case if granted bail.”
Nzelu therefore urged the court to admit his counsel to bail on liberal terms.
Moving his counter affidavit, the prosecution counsel, Mr. Rotimi Jacobs, said: “I want the court to hold that the evidence against the accused is strong, having regard to paragraph 5 of our counter affidavit and proof of evidence.
“I submit that the documents, earlier referred to in paragraph B80 of proof of evidence was sent in a telephone number contained in the letter. That was the origin of the scam.”
Jacob further submitted that: “In the letter, the applicant in exhibit 1(b) in his statement said he is the owner of the telephone number used,” adding “he received N95 million from the proceeds of the fraud. The initial $4 million US dollars remitted by the victim was also paid into the account of the applicant.”
