Erastus Akingbola: Crossing the Rubicon?

Our correspondent examines the implications of the exercise on the nation’s judiciary.The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) was convinced that the Federal High Court of Lagos’ verdict given in favour of erstwhile Chief Executive Officer of the defunct Intercontinental Bank Plc, Chief Erastus Akingbola, couldn’t stand any legal test.It was also filled with certain […]

Our correspondent examines the implications of the exercise on the nation’s judiciary.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) was convinced that the Federal High Court of Lagos’ verdict given in favour of erstwhile Chief Executive Officer of the defunct Intercontinental Bank Plc, Chief Erastus Akingbola, couldn’t stand any legal test.
It was also filled with certain lacunae, which the anti-graft commission felt Akingbola shouldn’t be allowed to benefit from.
Besides, the court of public opinion took the verdict with a pinch of salt having been equally convinced that there was more to the verdict than meets the eyes.
The anti-graft commission had approached the Lagos division of the Court of Appeal to contest the Justice Charles Achibong verdict which freed the flamboyant banker of involvement in a N5 billion fraud charge.
The success of EFCC’s appeal was last week bolstered by the upper court following its reinstatement of the N5 billion fraud charges as well as its order for the retrial of the much-celebrated case.
To the flamboyant banker, the development is another legal hurdle to cross in order to extricate him of involvement in the N5 billion fraud.
Justice Achibong, who gave Akingbola victory at the lower court, has been compulsorily retired on the orders of the National Judicial Council (NJC) because of the way he handled the matter.
Six years ago the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission arraigned Akingbola before Archibong on an allegation of financial impropriety to the tune of N5bn.
But on April 2, 2012, Achibong struck out the case for want of diligent prosecution and dubbed the prosecuting team consisting of five Senior Advocates of Nigeria as “a drain in the public purse.”
The judge said: “This prosecution team has chosen to pursue a campaign to scandalise the court, which amounts to serious and professional incompetence in the prosecution of the accused.
“This prosecution team or any part of it shall not be given further audience in this court in relation to the charges against the accused, either before this presiding judge or any other judge of the Federal High Court, for the reason I have given in the foregoing,” Archibong held.
But the EFCC, through its lawyer, Dr. Khrushchev Ekwueme, approached the appellate court with its four grounds of appeal to contest the lower court’s verdict.
The anti-crime agency contended that Archibong erred in law when he proceeded to strike out the prosecution’s case without affording it the opportunity to be heard.
The EFCC asserted that the judge didn’t invite any of the parties before dismissing the case, adding that the decision of the judge to strike out the matter was without the consent of any of the parties.
It argued that at the time the judge struck out the case, a valid appeal was pending before a higher court, thus making Archibong’s action “a judicial rascality.”
In its lead judgment by Justice Amina Aguie, which was read by Justice Yargata Nimpar, the appellate court ordered the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Mohammed Auta, to re-assign Akingbola’s case to another judge for re-trial “on merit and for accelerated hearing.
“Even a mere bystander who watched the proceedings that necessitated the appeal, could not possibly agree that there was fair hearing.”
The court further held that the trial judge overreacted in his state of anger and fell short of the composure, decorum and standard expected of judges in the discharge of their judicial duties.
While noting that the court must decide every application before it on merit, Aguie said it was difficult to conclude that the prosecution was not ready to move its application for stay of proceedings on the particular day it appeared in court.
For an upper court to order a lower court to begin a retrial of a case de novo says a lot about the matter in question and the dramatis personae involved.
Since very few cases in Nigeria had been ordered to be retried by superior courts, there is no gainsaying about the fact that the verdict earlier given by the Federal High Court was not good enough and the beneficiary of same had alleged moves by some powerful Nigerians to nail him despite the fact that he won in the court.
Stakeholders in the judiciary sector said the current moves to retry Akingbola’s case is another avenue being employed by the judiciary to change its face of embarrassment due to some controversial judgments of some courts in recent times.
‘’This retrial is a good one on the  part of the judiciary  not only to promote zero tolerance to corruption but also to ensure that justice is done and justiciably done so that there would be balance of satisfaction between the prosecution and the defense. Wherever the pendulum swings at the end of the retrial would go a long way to show that the judiciary is meticulous and conscious of its image this time around, ’’a Lagos-based lawyer, Andy Lawal, said.
A social commentator, Mr. Adebisi Gbadamosi said the retrial of Akingbola’s matter was a right step in a right direction given various implications the lower court verdict which absolved him of the fraud had on the image of Nigeria.
He said it does not matter how the prosecution of Akingbola would last, adding that the judiciary needs to show itself as an unbiased arbiter with a view to promoting the interest of all no matter the status and personality of the person involved.
‘’I think at the end of the trial, everyone would be convinced that a thorough job is done by the judiciary to clear air of the controversial verdict of a lower court which absolved Akingbola of corruption charges.
‘’I also think it is high time Nigerians begin to see the gravity of the verdict given to Akingbola and the import of the judiciary to go beyond sentiments to get to the root of the trial of the former banker,” he said.
There is no doubt that the judiciary is on its march to thoroughly review the activities of some of its officers who may have swayed in the discharge of their bounden duties to the country.
Besides, the arduous task is another expedition on the part of the judiciary to give room for Nigerians to rekindle their hope in them in line with the ongoing transformation agenda in the nation’s judicial sector.
Akingbola’s case was among the few that have redefined the legal lexicon of Nigeria but the implication of same is not lost to the man who is currently crossing the Rubicon.
The implication of the verdict  of the upper court is that Akingbola, who recently had his London assets seized by a Cayman court, would need to  convince the new judge his case would be assigned to that he merited the verdict earlier given him  by Justice Achibong.
Nigerians are sure waiting for the retrial of one of the few controversial cases in recent times to begin. They are also waiting to know if Akingbola would successfully cross the Rubicon and be vindicated by another court that would commence his corruption trial de novo.