‘Money laundering’: Dariye’s trial continues April 27

Hearing on the trial of former Plateau state governor, Joshua Dariye, at the Federal High Court, Gudu, on a 23-count charge bordering on money laundering and diversion of state ecological funds to the tune of N1.2billion, leveled against him by the Economic and Financial Crime Commission (EFCC), would continue on April 27.

At the last adjourned date March 16, Garba Pwul (SAN), prayed the court to grant him leave to withdraw from handling Dariye’s case. He told the court that he had decided to withdraw further appearance in court for the defendant. He argued that Section 36 (6) of the 1999 Constitution, provided for “the right of the defendant to choose who will represent him in court,” Counsel to Anti-graft agency, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), objected the application for withdrawal and cited relevant sections of the constitution and other authorities including Section 349 (7) (8) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, which deals with “non-appearance and non-representation of legal practitioner.”

According to him, a counsel had a greater responsibility to the court not only to the client. Th e prosecutor based his argument on Section 349 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, which deals with “non-appearance and non-representational of legal practitioner” ought to be considered as the guide in a criminal case.

“A legal practitioner, other than a law offi cer, engaged in any matter shall be bound to conduct the case on behalf of the prosecution or defendant until fi nal judgment, unless allowed for any special reason. “Where a legal practitioner intends to disengage from a matter, he shall notify the court, not less than three days before the date fi xed for hearing and such notice shall be served on the court and all parties,” he submitted.

He thereby urged the court to dismiss the application as incompetent. Pwul, however, argued that three lawyers had represented Dariye before him, since 2007 when the trial began, and that Section 36 (6) of the 1999 Constitution supports the right of the defendant to choose who will represent him in court. Pwul’s application came on a day Justice Banjoko had fi xed for continuation of defense after the judge had acceded to the request of the defense to recall fi rst prosecution witness and EFCC operative, Musa Sunday, for further cross-examination.”

Despite the presence of the witness in court, the reexamination could not hold as Pwul brought a fresh application seeking to disengage himself from representing Dariye. Pwul indicated that the move does not suggest loss of his client’s confi dence in him, further indicating that he would be representing Dariye at the Court of Appeal. He stated that his withdrawal was due to personal reasons.

In her ruling, Justice Banjoko, pointed out Rule 21 of the Rules of Professional Conduct in the Legal Professional which addresses circumstances surrounding the withdrawal of a lawyer from employment. Th e provision read that: “a lawyer shall not abandon nor withdraw employment once assumed except for good cause.” She stated that though the ground of withdrawal of the defense counsel does not display any special link in accordance with the rules of the legal profession, she would however accede to the notice of withdrawal in the interest of justice.

“Th is application for disengagement was not based on the choice of the defendant, but the choice of Paul and so strictly speaking, the Constitution doesn’t apply as it was counsel’s own voluntary decision to withdraw and not the defendant.”

Dariye, speaking from the box, insisted he would need a new counsel and possibly a SAN while he stressed on how expensive a SAN can be. Justice Banjoko, in her response, granted Dariye time to get a new counsel. She said she would have given him two weeks to get a new lawyer, but she would grant till end of April. Th e Trial judge therefore fi xed, April 27 and 28, 2017 respectively for further hearing.

Leave a Reply