Alleged ‎N3.9bn fraud: Badeh loses bid to stop trial

The Federal High Court sitting in Abuj‎a has refused an application by the former Chief of Defence Staff, Air Marshal Alex Badeh (retd),‎ seeking to stop further hearing on the 10-count criminal charge the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, preferred against him.

At the resumed sitting on the matter on Wednesday, Badeh, through his lawyer, Mr. Samuel Zibiri, SAN, challenged the jurisdiction of the court to try him on the basis of the charge which he said was grossly defective.

In his application dated March 15, Badeh argued that the charge did not disclose any offence known to money laundering Act, insisting that the charge lacked legal validity.

Relying on section 220 of the Administration of the Criminal Justice Act, 2015, ‎the former military chief urged the court to hear and determine the application first before delving into full-blown hearing of the substantive charge against him.

At the resumed sitting on the matter on Wednesday, Badeh, through his lawyer, Mr. Samuel Zibiri, SAN, challenged the jurisdiction of the court to try him on the basis of the charge which he said was grossly defective.

In his application dated March 15, Badeh argued that the charge did not disclose any offence known to money laundering Act, insisting that the charge lacked legal validity.

Relying on section 220 of the Administration of the Criminal Justice Act, 2015, ‎the former military chief urged the court to hear and determine the application first before delving into full-blown hearing of the substantive charge against him.

“Where the court is informed of the pendency of an application challenging its jurisdiction, the court is enjoined by plethora of legal authorities to ‎settle the issue of jurisdiction first”, Badeh’s lawyer argued.

‎However, EFCC lawyer, Mr. Rotimi Jacobs, SAN, urged the court to disregard the application, saying it was a deliberate ploy by the defendant to stall the commencement of his trial.

Jacobs argued that sections 221 ‎and 396(2) of the ACJA, 2015, provided that any objection challenging jurisdiction of the court or validity of a criminal charge must be considered alongside the substantive case.

(Vangaurd)