BY Bolanle Olabimtan
A federal high court in Abuja has refused to grant an application seeking bail for Abudulrasheed Maina, former chairman of the Pension Reform Task Team (PRTT).
Maina, who is on trial for alleged money laundering to the tune of N2 billion, stopped attending proceedings in September setting Ali Ndume, senator representing Borno south, who stood as his surety against the law.
He was arrested in Niger Republic where he had taken refuge and was extradited to Nigeria on December 3, 2020.
Consequently, Maina’s bail was revoked and an order was made remanding him in prison until the end of his trial.
In an application which was argued on February 19, Maina through his counsel, Sani Katu, prayed the court to grant him another bail on the grounds that his health condition has worsened owing to his incarceration.
He also claimed his leg may be amputated if he does not seek treatment.
Ruling on the application on Thursday, Okon Abang, the judge, said the former PRTT chairman does not deserve a second chance at bail.
“Having considered the facts placed before me, the first defendant cannot be trusted with another bail,” Abang said.
“He is not only at potential flight risk but a proven flight risk.
“A defendant who fled the country while his travel documents were deposited in court cannot be trusted with another bail.”
The judge said Maina’s medical report, which was attached to a further affidavit instead of an affidavit in support of the bail application, is silent on the purported knee injury which the defendant claims he suffers.
The judge also said the medical report does not show that the ailment the defendant suffers cannot be treated by in any medical facility within the country.
“The application lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed,” Abang ruled.
The judge also dismissed another application which sought to vacate the court order made on November 18 to continue to hear the case in the absence of the defendant.
Abang said Maina’s former counsel, M.C Agbo from the chambers of Joe Gazama, consented to the trial in absentia.
“An order made with the consent of counsel cannot be complained about,” the court held.
“The subsisting order made with consent of counsel cannot be spent or set aside. It is not even appealable except with the leave of the court.
“The application is a nullity.”
This website uses cookies.