Justice Nwite had on April 24 given the EFCC the go-ahead to arrest and detain six operators of CBEX over their involvement in the fraud
Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court, Abuja, has adjourned the bail application filed by three detained promoters of Crypto Bridge Exchange (CBEX) in the alleged over one billion dollars fraud, until June 30 for ruling.
Justice Nwite fixed the date after counsel for the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Fadila Yusuf, and the defence lawyers adopted their processes and argued their case for and against the application.
Justice Nwite had on April 24 given the EFCC the go-ahead to arrest and detain six operators of CBEX over their involvement in the fraud
The judge gave the order after the EFCC’s lawyer, Yusuf, moved an ex parte motion to the effect, saying the detention would be pending the conclusion of the investigation of the alleged offences and possible prosecution.
The six suspects include Adefowora Abiodun Olanipekun, Adefowora Oluwanisola, Emmanuel Uko, and Seyi Oloyede
Others are Avwerosuo Otorudo and Chukwuebuka Ehirim as the 1st to 6th defendants, respectively.
In the motion ex-parte dated and filed April 23 by Yusuf, the anti-graft agency gave four grounds for its application.
She said the EFCC has a statutory duty of prevention and detection of financial crimes through investigation.
Yusuf said that “the defendants are at large and a warrant of arrest is required to arrest the defendants for proper investigation and prosecution of this case”.
The 1st defendant, Abiodun Avwerosuo Otorudo (5th defendant) and Chukwuebuka Ehirim (6th defendant) had been in the EFCC’s custody on investigation.
At the resumed hearing, Babatunde Busari, who appeared for Abiodun, and Justice Otorudo, who represented Otorudo and Ehirim, informed the court that they had filed bail applications on their clients’ behalf.
Otorudo equally told the court that he filed a bail application on behalf of the 5th and 6th defendants (Otorudo and Ehirim) dated May 8, but filed on May 9.
Busari said that, though they received the EFCC’s counter affidavit this morning, they were ready to proceed.
Busari said the bail application was brought pursuant to Sections 34, 35, 36, 41, and 46 of the constitution (as amended) and Sections 159, 259, 296, and 298 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.
He said the application sought an order granting Abiodun bail on liberal terms from the EFCC’s custody pending the preferment of a charge, if any, against him.
He said it also sought an interim order compelling the EFCC to produce him before the court for the court to grant him bail from the commission’s custody as guaranteed by relevant sections of the law.
Busari, while giving the grounds for the application, said the court on April 24 issued an arrest warrant and a remand order against Abiodun and other persons in respect of CBEX.
The lawyer, however, said that before April 24, Abiodun had, through his counsel, reached out to the EFCC on April 22 that he was ready to surrender himself for investigation, and that on April 28, he turned himself in for investigation.
He said Abiodun, who is suffering from a severe ailment, had been in the custody of the anti-graft agency without bail since April 28, more than the statutory prescribed 14 days.
He said the EFCC latched on to the facts that the order of the court did not prescribe a time and could detain Abiodun for as long as they wanted in breach of his right.
Besides, he argued that no charge had been filed against him for any infraction of the law in any competent court of law.
Busari said that, though the prosecution served them with a counter-affidavit earlier in the morning, he based his argument on two points of law.
The lawyer argued that in the entirety of the counter affidavit, no averment controverts Abiodun’s affidavit in support of the bail application, citing two previous cases to back his submission.
Again, he argued that though the totality of the EFCC’s counter affidavit was hinged on the argument that Abiodun might likely jump bail, he reminded that Abiodun voluntarily surrendered himself to the commission.
Besides, he argued that the country’s legal system recognises the presumption of a suspect as innocent until proven guilty and that the assumption that he might likely jump bail should not be a basis for bail denial.
He said his detention for about 40 days contradicted Sections 295 and 296 of ACJA, which stipulated 14 days for a remand order and another 14 days extension.
The lawyer urged the court to grant their prayers.
On his part, counsel to the 5th and 6th defendants, Otorudo, also argued in the same vein.
He said his application sought an order varying the earlier order granting the EFCC leave to arrest and detain his clients pending the conclusion of the investigation or possible arraignment/trial.
The lawyer, who gave six grounds, said the 5th and 6th defendants voluntarily surrendered themselves to the investigation since April 25, and that up to date, they were still in custody without being admitted to bail.
He said if granted bail, the applicants are willing and ready to be available for further investigation and attend court whenever required.
Itorudo disagreed with the EFCC’s argument on the severity of the charge against his clients.
He argued that the offences they are being charged with are bailable ones.
He, therefore, prayed the court to use its discretion in their favour.
Responding, Yusuf vehemently opposed their bail application.
She said in response to Abiodun’s application, a five-paragraph counter affidavit was filed with three exhibits.
The EFCC’s lawyer observed that Abiodun, in his prayer, sought bail pending the preferment of a charge against him.
She also urged the court to discountenance the 5th and 6th defendants’ application for bail.
According to Yusuf, all the defendants in the matter are being charged for offence of obtaining over N1 billion dollars, more than some states’ budgets in Nigeria.
She said the commission was still receiving petitions from victims of the alleged fraud.
The lawyer said though granting bail is at the discretion of the court, this should be done judiciously and judicially.
