Court Threatens To Revoke Former NUPENG Chiefs’ Bail

Justice Yusuf Halilu of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), sitting in Maitama, Abuja, on Wednesday ordered the continuation of the ongoing trial of 20 former leaders of the Petroleum Tanker Drivers (PTD) branch of the Nigeria Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers (NUPENG), in the absence of the 19th defendant, Malam Adamu Ibrahim Umaru.

Umaru and the others are facing trial before the court alongside the former PTD National Chairman, Lucky Osesua, on a five-count charge relating to attempted murder, breach of the peace, and assault, in the case marked FCT/HC/CR/042/2023.

The defendants are alleged to have attacked NUPENG National President, Mr Williams Akporeha; the Union’s Secretary-General, Olawale Afolabi; and the new PTD National Chairman, Augustine Egbon, thereby acting in a manner likely to cause their death, among other offences.

The other defendants in the case include Dayyabu Garga, Humble Obinna, Akinolu Olabisi, Godwin Nwaka, Tiamiu Sikiru, Abdulmimin Shaibu, and John Amajuoyi, along with Zaira Aregbo, Patrick Erhivwor, Stephen Ogheneruemu, Gift Ukponku, Sunday Ezeocha, and seven others.

All defendants have pleaded not guilty to the charges.

RELATED

Lasaco Deepens Bond With Customers On Insurance Penetration

27 seconds ago

Turning Brain Drain Into Bridges

58 seconds ago

At today’s resumed hearing, prosecuting counsel David Kaswe informed the court of Umaru’s continued absence, noting that the 19th defendant had also been absent in the proceedings held in January and March of this year.

Kaswe stated that the prosecution had indicated at the last hearing that it would apply to continue the trial in Umaru’s absence at the next adjourned date.

He consequently requested that the court apply the provision of Section 352(4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) to permit the case to proceed without the 19th defendant.

According to him, Umaru’s absence today and during the two previous sittings in January and March satisfied the legal requirements for allowing the trial to continue in his absence.

In response, the counsel for the defendants, Abubakar Sani, who represented lead counsel Christopher Oshomegie SAN, confirmed that Umaru had been absent twice but noted that the court had previously been informed of the 19th defendant’s absence by the defence team.

He argued, however, that contrary to Kaswe’s assertion, the provision of Section 352(4) of the ACJA was not applicable in this situation, as Umaru was currently in custody at the correctional facility in Calabar, restricting his movement.

Sani maintained that the 19th defendant was being held by circumstances beyond his control and emphasised that, by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Umaru was still presumed innocent.

In reply, Kaswe stated that no documentation had been presented to the court to justify Umaru’s absence and asserted that the defendant’s absence was calculated to delay the swift progression of the trial.

In his ruling from the bench, Justice Halilu acknowledged that bail is a defendant’s constitutional right and that, in granting bail, the court imposes certain conditions to ensure the defendant’s presence in court for trial.

He stated that bail represents a contractual agreement between the court and the defendant, adding that the 19th defendant’s absence constituted a breach of that contract and the conditions of his bail, which prohibit him from committing further offences.

The judge agreed with the prosecution’s submission that the provisions of the ACJA should be applied in these circumstances. Therefore, he ordered that the case proceed in the absence of the 19th defendant, by the ACJA.

Earlier, the judge had threatened to revoke the bail of all defendants and remand them in a correctional centre to ensure that the defence team treats this criminal matter with the seriousness it deserves.

Following the conclusion of the evidence-in-chief of the second prosecution witness (PW2), Williams Akporeha, the court adjourned the case to 9 July for the defence to cross-examine the witness.