Efforts of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, to arraign a billionaire businessman, Chief Cletus Ibeto alongside his company, Ibeto Energy Development Company before a Lagos High Court, Ikeja has suffered another setback as he was absent in court for the third time.
Ibeto’s absence was not only condemned by the court, but his lawyer roles for not ensuring his presence was not taken lightly by the court as he was criticized by the presiding judge.
It would be recalled that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), has filed 10-count charge against Ibeto before Justice Ismail Ijelu.
His offences bordering on alleged obtaining by pretenses, fraudulent conversion of property, criminal breach of trust, forgery, and deception.
The anti graft commission said his offences contravene the provision of Section 1 of the Advance Fee Fraud Act 2006 and Section 365(3d) and (e), 366 of the Criminal Law of Lagos State, 2015.
When the matter was called, the EFCC counsel, Mr. Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) told court that the case was adjourned on September 28, 2023 to yesterday for
arraignment following the absence of the defendant.
Jacobs said that the court adjourned the matter based on the application of the defendants, for them to appear yesterday for arraignment. ” The senior counsel appeared for them that day and pleaded with your lordship that the first defendant had medical issue.
“The defendants counsel had promised to produce him on the next adjourned, and that’s why we are here”.
The defendant counsel, Dr Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN) in his response said that the law is not a respecter of any person, he noted that he is of the firm view that the matter that can be resolved, and if given some time it can be resolved.
While admitting that he had no medical report with him in court to explain the absence of the defendant, he stressed further that the issue at stake was one that could be resolved between the complainant and the defendants.
He prayed the court if they can be accommodated in that regard and that is his respectful plea.
Jacobs responded that he agreed that plea bargain is encouraged even in criminal matters. He however said that the EFCC gave them the opportunity to go and resolve their differences and that they did not seize the opportunity, even before the charges were filed.
“My lord, there should be arraignment of the defendant first before the court will assume jurisdiction to do anything.”
After listened to the both sides, Justice Ijelu, expressed concerns that the defence counsel seemed to be trying to deceive the court.
The judge said: “The court believes that when counsel, senior counsel at that appear before the court and inform the court that an action will be taken and on the basis of that adjournment was sought, it is the view of the court that the action must be taken.
“The court exists for strict business and does not want to believe that the learned senior counsel deceived the court by taking adjournment at the last date, and pleaded passionately that he would bring the medical report today, and that whatever happens, he will be here today.
“Appearing to now say that the defendant is still healing.That should not be; counsel must be seen as taking his words seriously, particularly senior counsel. One wonders the type of example you are setting for junior counsel, and this court is not pleased with that.This is the third time that this case will be called and nothing has been done about it.
“Even if there will be plea bargain, he has to come and take his plea before the court can assume jurisdiction. The defendant cannot be shielded from coming to court.”
Subsequently the Judge threatened to issue a bench warrant against him if he failed to appear in court the next adjourned date.
Justice Ijelu therefore adjourned the case to November 3, 2023 for arraignment.
