The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, on Friday
discharged and acquitted a former candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party
(PDP) in the last governorship election in Osun State, Senator Nurudeen Ademola
Adeleke in the alleged examination malpractices charge filed against him and
four others.
Adeleke’s discharge and subsequent acquittal was due to the
withdrawal of the criminal charge against him by police.
Grow your business with us
The Police had in 2018 arraigned Adeleke along with Sikiru
Adeleke (who is said to be the senator’s relative), Alhaji Aregbesola Mufutau
(the school principal), Gbadamosi Thomas Ojo (a school registrar) and Dare
Samuel Olutope (a teacher) on a four-count charge bordering on fraud.
However, after calling four witnesses to prove the criminal
allegations, the police on Thursday applied to withdraw the charge against
Adeleke on grounds that he has not been available to continue trial since he
was granted leave to travel abroad on medical grounds.
Delivering ruling in the police application, the trial
judge, Justice Inyang Ekwo held that he was minded to discharge and acquit
Adeleke in view of the prosecution’s decision to withdraw charges against him.
Section 108(3) of the ACJA states: “In any trial before a
court in which the prosecutor withdraws in respect of the prosecution of an
offence before the defendant is called upon to make his defence, the court may,
in its discretion, order the defendant to be acquitted if it is satisfied, on
the merits of the case, that the order is a proper one, and when an order of
acquittal is made, the court shall endorse its reasons for making the order on
the record.”
The court on May 6, 2019, granted Adeleke’s permission to
travel to the United States on grounds of ill-health.
Since then, Adeleke has not returned for the trial to
continue, even though the prosecution has called four witnesses so far.
On Thursday, prosecution lawyer, Simon Lough argued an
application in which he sought to sever the charge, to exclude Adeleke from the
trial in view of his continued absence.
Lough was of the opinion that the only way to prevent
further delay in the case was to continue with the trial of the other available
four defendants, since Adeleke has stayed away from the country, claiming to be
sick and attending to his health in the US.
Counsel to Adeleke, Alex Izinyon (SAN) and other defence
lawyers in the case did not object to the prosecution’s decision to amend the
charge.
They, however, disagreed with the prosecution on the
appropriate order to be made; whether Adeleke should be simply discharged,
based on the withdrawal of the charge against him, or whether he should be
discharged and acquitted.
In a ruling on Friday, Justice Ekwo held that although the
prosecution, by its application, sought to sever the charge, he will take its (prosecution’s)
intention to mean withdrawal of the case against Adeleke.
The judge said his decision was informed by the fact that no
law allows the prosecution to sever a charge, but to withdraw against a
defendant and to amended at any time before judgment.
He noted that Section 108 of ACJA allows the prosecution to
undertake a withdrawal of charges, while Section 246 of the Act deals with
amendment of charge.
Justice Ekwo said: “the law is that the prosecution can
amend the charge at any time before judgment. There would have been nothing
wrong if the prosecution had simply applied to withdraw the charge against the
first defendant (Adeleke).
“I am seeing this
application (the one argued on Thursday by the prosecution lawyer) as one that
simply seeks to withdraw, and I so hold.
“This withdrawal is taking place after the prosecution has
called four witnesses. And from the record of the court, the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses was concluded.
“The consequential order to be made upon the withdrawal of a
charge is at the discretion of the court under Section 108(3) of the ACJA,” the
judge said and held that, since the prosecution sought to withdraw the charge
against the first defendant at this stage, he was of the view that the appropriate
order to be made is that of acquittal because the evidence of the prosecution’s
four witnesses have been concluded and the witnesses have been discharged.
The judge then made an order allowing the prosecution’s
withdrawal of the charge against Adeleke and proceeded to make order acquitting
him.
He adjourned till June 25, 2020, for the continuation of the
trial in relation to the other defendants – Sikiru Adeleke, Alhaji Aregbesola
Mufutau, Gbadamosi Thomas Ojo and Dare Samuel Olutope.
In the charge, Ademola and Sikiru were accused of
fraudulently, through impersonation, registering as students of Ojo-Aro
Community Grammar School, Ojo-Aro, Osun State to enable them to sit for the
National Examinations Council (NECO) examination of June/July 2017.
The other three defendants were accused of aiding the
commission of the alleged offence, in the charge filed in the name of the
Inspector General of Police (IGP).
The prosecution amended the charge in December 2018 and raised the counts on the charge to seven, following which the defendants were re-arraigned on the amended charge on December 16, 2018.
Source: Tribune