A Federal High Court in Lagos, on Monday, held that the arrest warrant issued against gospel music promoter, Ezekiel Onyedikachi, a.k.a Eeze Tee, over alleged fraudulent misappropriation of royalties due to singer Mercy Chinwo.
Justice Alexander Owoeye reaffirm the order while adjourning the criminal charge against Eezee Tee, a former Manager to gospel singer Mercy Chinwo.
Recall that Justice Owoeye had on January 16 issued an arrest warrant against the defendant following an exparte application by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
The gospel singer (Chinwo) had alleged that the defendant diverted the sum of about $345,000 representing royalties due to her, without remittance.
EFCC counsel, Mrs Bilikisu Buhari, had told the court that the prosecution was unable to effect service of the charge on the defendant who had been unreachable.
The court had consequently granted the application for an arrest warrant against the defendant.
Meanwhile, at the last adjourned date on January 24, defense counsel, Dr. Monday Ubani, had undertaken to accept service of the charge on behalf of the defendant.
Defence counsel had, however, informed the court of a preliminary objection, challenging the instant charge.
The court had, accordingly, adjourned the case for arraignment of the defendant.
When the case was called on Monday, Ubani announced appearance for the defendant, while Mr Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN) appeared for the prosecution.
Ubani then informed the court that the case ought to be for arraignment of the defendant, but that the defence had a notice of preliminary objection before the court.
But, the judge asked him a question thus: “Where is the defendant?”
In response, he told the court that he received a call from the defendant, who said he had a terrible accident on Monday morning, and told the court that the defendant will be available at the next date.
When defence counsel sought to move his objection, the court declined on the grounds that he cannot be heard until the defendant appear before the court.
Justice Owoeye held that the court had not assumed jurisdicton over the case since the plea of the defendant had not been taken.
On his part, the prosecutor (Oyedepo) described the procedure adopted by the defence as strange.
Citing provisions of sections 396(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, as well as judicial authorities of State vs Achara and Frn vs Yahaya Bello, he urged the court not to hear the defence.
“My lord, it is a show of shame and outright disrespect for this court, for the defendant to be absent on three different occasions in a criminal trial,” he said
The prosecutor informed the court that shortly after the court rose at the last adjourned date, the defendant was seen within the court’s premises, granting media interview.
He described same as a shame and complete dishonour to the court for a defendant to exhibit such attitudes.
Besides, he told the court that if actually the defendant was indisposed as represented by counsel, then it ought to be deposed by way of affidavit, to be shown as proof before the court.
In the circumstance, Oyedepo prayed the court to issue a bench warrant to compel the attendance of the defendant before the court, adding that same is important to protect the integrity of the court.
Although defence counsel objected to the grant of a bench warrant by the court, and undertook to personally produce the defendant on his honour, the prosecution argued that defence’s honour or intergrity was not in issue.
Oyedepo maintained that the court should issue a legal instrument, compelling the appearance of the defendant.
In a short ruling, the court held that from the court’s record, the earlier bench warrant by the court still subsist as it had not been withdrawn.
The court consequently held that the defendant is to appear in court on the next adjourned date for his arraignment, either by the subsisting bench warrant, or by production by his defence counsel.
Based on the agreement of counsels, the court adjourned the case until March 6 for the arraignment of the defendant.
