Court Fixes May 25 For Ruling On Bail Application In Suit Against Former Bank Chairman

Justice Jude Onwuegbuezie of the Federal Capital Territory High Court sitting, Wednesday, fixed May 25 to deliver ruling in an application seeking to admit a former chairman of the Board of Directors of Skye Bank Plc, Tunde Ayeni to bail.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission had arraigned Ayeni on a 17 count charge bothering on alleged N15.6 billion fraud.

Ayeni however pleaded not guilty when the charge was read to him.

At the resumed trial, counsel to Ayeni, Dele Adesina, SAN, who led other four senior advocates moved the bail application

Adesina prayed the court to admit the applicant to bail . He informed the court that the anti-graft agency had earlier granted Ayeni an administrative bail.

He further submitted that the administrative bail was about to be perfected when the court at the last sitting gave a remand order.

He equally argued that the defendant has a constitutional right of presumption of innocence until it is proved otherwise.

Adesina also noted that the offence is a bailable one .

However, prosecution counsel , G.I Inde brought an application opposing the bail application .

He prayed the court to deny the defendant bail .

According to him, “We filed a counter affidavit of 23 paragraph with an exhibit annexed and a written address in support dated and filed May 7.

“We also filed a further counter affidavit of 9 paragraphs deposed to by on Halimat Kabir an officer of EFCC. We relied on all deposition. We adopt the written address as our oral submission in praying your lordship to refuse the bail application’ .

After listening to both parties, adjourned till May 25 for ruling.

A similar criminal charge was instituted against Ayeni and one Timothy Oguntayo in 2019, in which they pleaded not guilty to all counts.

At the trial before Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu of the Federal High Court Ayeni’s counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, argued that the transactions under investigation by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) were fundamentally commercial and banking transactions rather than criminal diversions of funds and in fact there was already an understanding between the bank and the duo for which the approval of the Central Bank of Nigeria was sought and obtained by the management of Skye bank.

Olanipekun at the trial then submitted that the dispute “arose out of business transactions that went sour” and emphasized that the issues were amenable to amicable resolution. He further maintained that the funds in question were not unlawfully diverted, but were part of legitimate banking transaction arrangements undertaken in the ordinary course of the bank’s operations.

The defence also resisted the EFCC’s attempt to criminalize what it described as commercial decisions taken within the framework of legitimate banking business.

Subsequently, the parties agreed to settle the matter out of court and informed the court accordingly. At the final sitting, the terms of settlement reached by the parties were presented to the court which were the terms already approved by the Central Bank of Nigeria even before the commencement of the investigation by the EFCC.

Justice Ojukwu thereafter adopted the settlement terms as the judgment of the court, thereby bringing the matter to a formal conclusion.

Legal observers however noted that the present prosecution appears to draw substantially from the same facts and allegations that formed the basis of the 2019 case.

This development has generated concerns among legal commentators, who argue that reopening issues previously resolved by a court of competent jurisdiction may raise questions under the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.

They contend that subjecting a defendant to a second prosecution over the same or substantially similar allegations could amount to placing the individual in legal jeopardy twice for one cause, a situation that may offend both the spirit and the letter of the law