TheCable

Andrew Yakubu, former group managing director of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), has asked a federal high court in Abuja to reject an application by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to amend the charges against him.

Yakubu was arraigned before Ahmed Mohammed, presiding judge, on March 16, 2017, on a six-count charge bordering on money laundering and false declaration of assets.

Upon filing a no-case-submission, Mohammed had struck out two counts out of the six-count charge.

On appeal, another two counts were struck out by the court of appeal. The appellate court then ordered Yakubu to answer the remaining two counts before the trial court.

At the resumed trial on Wednesday, Halima Shehu, EFCC counsel, informed the court of the application for an amendment of the charge.

“My lord, the matter today is for continuation of trial, however, we have an amended charge dated March 8, and filed on March 10, 2021,” she said.

“The application is brought pursuant to Section 216(1) and (2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.

“We humbly apply for the application to be granted for us to amend the charge.”

Shehu said she attempted to serve the amended charge on the defendant through his counsel, A A Usman, but he refused service.

Responding, Usman said: “I do confirm that we refused service of what has been described as an amended charge this morning. We did so with reasons.”

Usman said the court of appeal’s decision made on April 24, 2020, has provided a guide for the trial.

“The case was remitted back to the trial court for the appellant (Yakubu) to enter defence in respect of counts 3 and 4 of the charge, and not counts 3 and 4 of an amended charge,” he argued.

He said parties in the matter are “bound to give effect to the order of the court of appeal which is extant”.

Usman submitted that the purpose of the amended charge was “to undermine” the appeal before the supreme court in respect of the matter.

“I urge the court to refuse the proposed amendment and direct that the defendant who has finished testifying in chief and is being cross-examined be directed to enter the witness box to continue his evidence. The amendment is prejudicial, to say the least,” he said.

However, the prosecution counsel submitted that “the law allows the prosecution at any stage of the proceedings before judgement and it is incontestable.”

She told the court that the appellate court did not make any further order that would make the prosecution not to amend the charge.

“Rather, the court of appeal ordered the defendant to enter defence on counts 3 and 4,” she said.

“We humbly urge the court to grant our application to amend the charge.”

After taking arguments from both counsels, the judge reserved ruling for April 15.