ALLEGED FRAUD: Again, Ganduje, wife fail appearance but court rules trial continues in absential
*Adjourns case to October 23, 24 for trial
By OUR REPORTER, Kano
National Chairman of Nigeria’s ruling All Progressive Congress (APC), Dr. Abdullahi Umar Ganduje, wife and others accused of bribery and misappropriation, again, failed to appear before the Kano State High Court on Thursday for their arraignment and trial.
However, the court had ruled that, despite their absence, the trial would continue even in their absence.
The state government had filed an eight-count charge against Ganduje, his wife Hafsat Umar; Abubakar Bawuro; Umar Abdullahi Umar; Jibrilla Muhammad, Lamash Properties Limited, Safari Textiles Limited, and Lasage General Enterprises Limited.
The charges involve allegations of bribery, misappropriation, and the diversion of public funds amounting to billions of naira.
Ruling on Thursday, Justice Amina Adamu-Aliyu dismissed the state government’s application for a bench warrant against the defendants.
“The trial of the defendants continues even in their absence,” she stated.
The court had previously, on June 5, granted an order to serve Ganduje and the other defendants through substituted service.
The prosecution counsel, Adeola Adedipe (SAN) informed the court that the defendants had been served, and an affidavit of service was filed on June 6.
He noted, “My lord, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th, and 8th respondents are not in court nor represented, only the 6th respondent”.
Adedipe requested the court to enter a plea of not guilty on behalf of the absent defendants, citing section 278(1)(2) of the Kano State Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL) 2019.
“The court should enter a plea of not guilty on behalf of the defendants who refused to answer the complaint in the charge,” Adedipe argued.
He also urged the court to issue a bench warrant of arrest pursuant to Section 388 of the Kano State ACJL, stressing, “The essence of an arrest warrant is for the sanctity and urgency of the court because an order has been made for the defendants to appear before it and they refused”.
However, counsel for the 6th respondent, Nureini Jimoh (SAN) contended that service had not been properly effected on his client.
“We filed a notice of preliminary objection on the competency of the entire charge. The court does not have constitutional power on any of the count charges,” Jimoh stated.
He also mentioned that an application for a stay of execution had been filed before the Court of Appeal, “restraining the prosecution from publishing any charges against the 6th respondent”.
Jimoh urged the court to dismiss the prosecution’s application for a warrant of arrest and to refrain from entering a plea of not guilty on behalf of the 6th respondent.
Justice Adamu-Aliyu has adjourned the case until October 23 and 24 for the hearing of the preliminary objection and the main charge.
