Again, Dariye Asks Court to Stop His Money Laundering Trial

A former Plateau State Governor, Joshua Dariye, yesterday asked Justice Adebukola Banjoko of an Abuja High Court sitting at Gudu District, to hands off his trial for alleged money laundering.

Dariye, who is being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission ( EFCC) for allegedly diverting about N1.162 billion from the state’s Ecological Fund to private companies and individuals, has filed an application to stay further proceedings in his trial pending the determination of an appeal he filed at the Court of Appeal.

He is challenging a ruling delivered by the court on March 6, 2016 where the court granted Dariye, through his counsel, Garba Pwul (SAN), recall of first Prosecution Witness (PW1), an EFCC Investigation Police Officer (IPO), Mr. Musa Sunday, but refused to order the recall of PW9, a retired officer of the Metropolitan Police from the United Kingdom, Mr. Peter Clarke.

He predicated his application to stop his trial on Section 36 (1), (4) and (6) (b) and (d) of the 1999 Constitution. He also said he had lost confidence in the court to try him.

Dariye stated that the evidence the defence intended to elicit through PW9 in further cross examination was vital to the charge he is being tried on.

However, the trial, in its 10th year this year, has been in court since 2007, when the EFCC preferred a 23-count charge of money laundering involving alleged diversion of about N1.16billion Plateau State Government’s ecological funds against Dariye.

He pleaded not guilty to the charges following which the trial judge, Justice Banjoko, fixed November 13, 2007 for the commencement of trial.

Before that date, however, Dariye filed an application, challenging the competence of the charges and the jurisdiction of the court. He argued that he ought to be tried before a Plateau State High Court and not an Abuja High Court.

The trial judge, on December 13, 2007 heard and dismissed Dariye’s application for lacking in merit. Dariye appealed against the ruling of the court but the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of Justice Banjoko. Dariye subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court.

The apex court on February 27, 2015 dismissed Dariye’s appeal and ordered him to submit himself for trial.

Following the Supreme Court’s judgment delivered on February 27, 2015 the former governor’s trial resumed, after about nine years of delay, on January 26, 2016.

Dariye has again instituted an appeal to the appellate court, alleging “manifest of bias” against Justice Banjoko which he said manifested in proceedings of December 7, 2017.

The judge had dismissed his application asking her (the judge) to disqualify herself from the trial and refused to transfer the to the Chief Judge for re-assignment to another court.

Dariye, in a letter addressed to the Chief Judge, Ishaq Bello accused Justice Banjoko of “manifest and undisguised bias,’’ among other accusations.

While giving ruling in the motion filed December 13, 2016 by Dariye, accusing the judge of ‘Manifest and undisguised bias’ in the N1.162 billion fraud suit against Dariye, the judge dismissed the motion as lacking in merit.

She held that throughout her capacity in the matter before the court, she had maintained her judicious oath in carrying out her duties and declared that the trial will continue.

The judge in her ruling on the recall of witnesses, denied the request for PW9. She held that Peter Clarke, has retired from the Metropolitan Police since March 2015 and his whereabouts might be difficult to know.

She further held that the witness is not a compellable one and the court was minded of the fact that the witness resides outside the jurisdiction of the court.

She added that the witness had not appeared earlier in the case at the instruction of any authority but had done so at his free will. The court dismissed the application.

Motion for recall of PW1, EFCC Investigation Police Officer (IPO), Mr. Musa Sunday for further re-examination was however granted.

Justice Banjoko, noted that the defense, who had called 16 witnesses had earlier cross examined the witness with over 78 pages on court records and the defense had had ample time to get its facts.

While she held that the court is minded that the PW1 is still serving and within the jurisdiction of the court, she granted the request for recall of PW1.