The trial of some bank officials involved in the N8 billion Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) mutilated currency scam was again stalled on Wednesday over a defence counsel’s failure to serve his written address.
Justice Olayinka Faji of the Federal High Court, Ibadan, adjourned sitting till July 10 when counsel to the EFCC, Mr Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), and Mr Olalekan Ojo, could not agree on whether the address had been served and received.
The trial judge said it was obvious that proceeding could not go on until all the parties in the case were served with all pending applications.
“I see the need to adjourn because there is too much of housekeeping to be done in this matter, yet service is a matter of jurisdiction,” he said.
He then directed all the parties to ensure service of all pending applications and to promptly reply to same where need be.
The judge added that hearing notice be issued to parties in the four sister cases before him to be in court on the adjourned date.
Faji also ruled that a production warrant be issued against other defendants to appear before him on the adjourned date.
Earlier, Ojo, who is the counsel to two CBN officials, Olaniran Adeola and Togun Philip, had told the court he served the prosecution his written address just before the proceeding commenced.
Jacobs, who confirmed receiving the process, said that he had also served Ojo his counter affidavit in reply to the address.
However, other counsel in the case protested the non-receipt of Ojo’s address.
According to them, since it is a joint trial, all the parties should have been served all the processes filed in court.
Mr Olayinka Bolanle, counsel to Kolawole Babalola, another CBN staff, pleaded with Jacobs to effect service on all parties involved in the matter.
“I have not been served with his (Jacobs’) reaction to Ojo’s application; yet every party must be served as this is a joint-trial,” Bolanle said.
Similarly, Nathaniel Oke (SAN), representing Isiaq Akano, argued that all processes in respect of the case must be served on all parties.
“Whether we react or not is, however, another thing,” he said.
At the last sitting on June 26, Ojo had filed an application challenging the integrity of the trial judge.
He alleged that Faji had, in his ruling on bail applications delivered on June 19, showed that he was biased against the accused.
Ojo particularly said it was prejudicial of the judge to have stated in his ruling that the evidence against his clients were strong even before the commencement of trial.
He, therefore, appealed to the appellate court to transfer or assign the suit to another judge.
Alternatively, he argued that the court disqualifies itself from hearing the charges against his clients.
