The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday ordered Mohammed Ahmed, one of the lawyers defending the convicted ex-Minister of Power, Saleh Mamman, to appear before it on June 24 over allegation levelled against the trial judge, Justice James Omotosho.
Justice Omotosho gave the order following an affidavit of facts relating to the judgement convicting Mamman deposed to by Ahmed and filed before the court on May 22.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) the judge had, on May 7, convicted Mamman on all 12 counts preferred against him by the EFCC and later sentenced in absentia to 75 years in prison.
The judge also ordered for his arrest anywhere he was found to serve his jail term.
On May 19, the anti-graft agency announced that Mamman was arrested in Kaduna and was brought to court on May 26 where he was ordered to be taken to Kuje Correctional Centre for his imprisonment.
Also on same day (May 26), the judge fixed June 8 for hearing of the EFCC’s motion seeking forfeiture of five additional properties linked to Mamman.
Justice Omotosho had fixed the date in the interest of fair hearing, following information that a lawyer who appeared for the convict left the courtroom without notifying the court or the prosecution team.
The properties were listed as Walijam Apartments, located at No.43, Plot 435 Lobito Crescent, Wuse 2, Abuja and Bloom Luxury Suites Nigeria Limited, located at No 5, Amana Crescent, New Estate Unguwan Rimi, Kaduna State.
Others are a mansion on No 11, Misratah Street, Wuse 2, Abuja; a mansion on No 13, Misratah Street, Wuse 2, Abuja and A.U.A. Plaza, situated on Plot 734, Kade Street, Wuse 2, Abuja.
When the case came up on June 8, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, counsel for EFCC, informed the court that the matter was fixed for hearing of their application for consequential order to forfeit certain properties belonging to the convict.
But Justice Omotosho called the attention of Oyedepo to the affidavit of facts deposed to by Ahmed where the lawyer alleged that the judgement delivered on May 7 was done when the judge “became enraged.”
Responding, Oyedepo said he had not been served with the copy of the affidavit and the judge ordered Suleiman Yakubu, who appeared for Mamman, to serve the prosecution.
The judge then told Yakubu that Ahmed, who deposed to the affidavit, should appear in court to offer explanation on some of the paragraphs in the application.
He adjourned the matter until June 10 for hearing.
However, when the case was called on Wednesday, only Oyedepo and Yakubu were in court.
When asked Ahmed’s whereabouts, Yakubu said he was indisposed.
“I must apologise that on the last adjourned date, my Lord ordered that the deponent be in court,” he said.
The lawyer said Ahmed had been illed for some time.
“He has been coughing, and we don’t know if it is tuberculosis because the cough had defiled all drugs,” Yakubu told the court.
He said Ahmed had gone to his village for treatment.
He begged the court to adjourn the matter to the following week.
“How do you know he is suffering from tuberculosis?” Justice Omotosho asked.
“Having taken drugs and it has resisted my lord,” Yakubu responded.
The prosecution lawyer expressed disappointment with the attitude of the defence lawyers.
“This is what we kept complaining about. We are counsel in the temple of justice my Lord.
“I don’t know when I started experiencing a bitter part of my colleagues in this matter.
“I don’t think this is proper. As it stands now, our motion is ripe for hearing,” he said.
Oyedepo stated that any of the defence lawyers could have called him on phone to explain the development to him or informed the court before the hearing date.
“But this antics will not work,” he said.
He then conceded to Yakubu’s application for adjournment.
But the defence lawyer, in response to Oyedepo’s comment, said it was unfair for prosecution to say he was experiencing a bitter part of the defence team.
Justice Omotosho, who chronicled events leading to the delivery of the judgement, said he would give Ahmed another opportunity to appear in court.
The judge adjourned the matter until June 24 for hearing of the EFCC’s motion and for the deponent to be in court.
