Henry Ojelu

Atuche: when he was acquitted by the Lagos High Court

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has appealed against the judgement of a Lagos High Court sitting in Ikeja which discharged a former Managing Director of defunct Bank PHB, Francis Atuche of the N25.7 billion theft charge preferred against him.

Also discharged of the theft charge were his wife, Elizabeth and a former Chief Financial Officer of the bank, Ugo Anyanwu.

The trial judge, Justice Lateef Lawal-Akapo while delivering judgement in the matter June 22, 2015 had upheld the submissions of the defence team including Chief Anthony Idigbe (SAN) and Sylvia Ogwemoh (SAN) that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit and thatthe prosecution’s case lacked merit.

“I find no merit in the prosecution’s application, it is hereby dismissed. The defendants application dated November 27, 2013 succeeds and I hereby make the following orders:

“The criminal charge in this suit is hereby struck out and the accused persons namely; Francis Atuche, Elizabeth Atuche and Ugo Anyanwu are discharged. The complainant’s notice of plenary objection dated December 3, 2013 is hereby dismissed”, Justice Lawal-Akapo declared.

But the EFCC in its appeal filed by its counsel, Kemi Pinheiro (SAN), is now seeking an order of the Court of Appeal setting aside the order of Justice Lawal-Akapo striking out the counts contained in the amended information dated June 1, 2011.

Other reliefs sought by the EFCC include an order allowing its appeal and an order directing a continuation of trial and defence before Justice Lateefa Okunnu of the High Court of Lagos State sitting in Ikeja.

The EFCC which based its appeal on five grounds told the court that the learned trial judge erred in law by proceeding to strike out the entirety of the amended information when by the unambiguous and plain provisions of Section 252(3) of the Constitution, no exclusive criminal jurisdiction is conferred on the Federal High Court (at least to the exclusion of the Lagos High Court) on the matters provided for under Section 251(1).

The commission contended that it was wrong for the court to strike out counts 1 to 24 and 26 in the amended information against the third defendant when the order of the Court of Appeal against which he claimed the lower court assumed jurisdiction over the charge was in respect of the appeals initiated by the first and second appellants only stressing that the third defendant was not a party to it.

He said neither the third defendant nor his counsel made any application before the court seeking to have counts 1 to 24 and 26 of the amended information struck out. He said the court, by so doing, has become charitable by granting relief and order not sought for by the third defendant.

The EFCC submitted that the defendants pleaded separately each of the counts contained in the amended information to the main suit.