The Anambra State Government has expressed its opposition to the trial of former governor Willie Obiano by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) over an alleged N4bn theft. Obiano was arraigned on nine charges in which the EFCC accused him of diverting Anambra State’s security votes while he was governor. Obiano has been granted administrative bail but restricted to Abuja, and the EFCC has been ordered to deposit his travel documents with the court registrar. Anambra State Governor, Chukwuma Soludo, paid Obiano a visit in Abuja and stated on Facebook that this situation will pass. Obiano’s lawyer,Dr Onyechi Ikpeazu SAN informed the court that the state government has appealed against the EFCC’s authority to investigate and try Obiano.
At the resumed proceedings in the trial on Thursday, Obiano’s lawyer, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), informed Justice Ekwo that the Anambra State government was opposed to Obiano’s trial by the EFCC.
The SAN informed the court of a March 3 appeal filed by state government to challenge the authority of the EFCC to investigate and try Obiano.
Ikpeazu said, “The subject matter of the charge bothers on accountability for security votes funds.
The honourable court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to entertain issues on accountability for security votes funds.
“There is an appeal filed by the Anambra State Government challenging the powers of the EFCC to investigate the security vote of the Anambra State Government.
“The preferment of the entire charge is in bad faith.”
Ikepazu also stated that there was no testimony from any witness indicating that Obiano issued directives for the disbursement of security votes and other funds belonging to the Anambra State government.
He said, “No evidence exists from any witness showing that defendant/applicant passed down directives on the disbursements of security votes and other funds belonging to Anambra State Government.
“The defendant/applicant cannot be made answerable for any purported unlawful actions of officials of Anambra State Government as there is no vicarious liability in our criminal jurisprudence.
“The thinking and conclusion of the prosecution on the counts arose from speculation and suspicion. This honourable court has inherent judicial powers to grant all the reliefs sought above.”
The trial was adjourned for the second time due to the defence’s inability to respond to the prosecution’s counter-affidavit. The matter has been adjourned until March 13.
About Author
