The Kano State High Court ruled on Thursday that the trial of Dr. Abdullahi Ganduje, Chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC), and his co-defendants on charges of alleged bribery and misappropriation will continue even if they are absent.
The state government has filed an eight-count charge against Ganduje, his wife Hafsat Umar, Abubakar Bawuro, Umar Abdullahi Umar, Jibrilla Muhammad, Lamash Properties Limited, Safari Textiles Limited, and Lasage General Enterprises Limited. These charges include allegations of bribery, misappropriation, and the diversion of public funds amounting to billions of naira.
Justice Amina Adamu-Aliyu dismissed an application from the state government seeking a bench warrant for the defendants. She entered a plea of not guilty on their behalf and refused to strike out the charges.
“The trial of the defendants continues even in their absence,” Justice Adamu-Aliyu declared. The case has been adjourned until October 23 and 24 for the hearing of the preliminary objection and the main charge.
When the case came up for hearing, prosecution counsel Mr. Adeola Adedipe SAN informed the court that the defendants had been served, and an affidavit of service was filed on June 6.
“My lord, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th, and 8th respondents are not in court nor represented, only the 6th respondent is present,” Adedipe said.
“The court should enter a plea of not guilty on behalf of the defendants who refused to answer the complaint in the charge pursuant to Section 278(1)(2) of the Kano State Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL) 2019.”
He urged the court to issue a bench warrant for the defendants’ arrest, citing section 388 of the Kano State ACJL. “My lord, the essence of an arrest warrant is for the sanctity and majesty of the court because an order has been made for the defendants to appear before it, and they refused,” he explained.
Adedipe opposed the 6th respondent’s application for a preliminary objection, affidavit of service, and notice of appeal for a stay of execution pending the case’s hearing and determination.
Counsel for the 6th respondent, Mr. Nureini Jimoh SAN, argued that service was not properly effected on his client. “We filed a notice of preliminary objection on the competency of the entire charge. The court does not have constitutional power over any of the count charges,” Jimoh stated.
He also informed the court of an application for a stay of execution filed before the Court of Appeal, which aims to restrain the prosecution from publishing any charges against the 6th respondent. Jimoh urged the court to dismiss the prosecution’s application for a warrant of arrest and a plea of not guilty on his client’s behalf.
