Money Laundering: ‘Maina Wants To Hold Court To Ransom’ – Prosecution Blocks Lawyer’s Plea To Withdraw From Case

On Wednesday, there was a twist at the ongoing money laundering trial of embattled former chairman of the defunct Pension Reform Task Team, Abulrasheed Maina, as his lawyer, Sani Katu, SAN, told (orally) a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja that he wanted to withdraw from the case.

Katu, who had earlier shown displeasure at the behavior of Maina’s first defense witness, Ngozika Ihuoma( a consultant to PRTT) , was silent as to what transpired between him and his client .

But he told trial judge Okong Abang that “the defendant has a choice and he has made up his mind to bring in another counsel.”

Meanwhile, THE WHISTLER observed that during the testimony of Ngozika ( who claimed PRTT recovered 282 billion among others), the defense counsel stood up at several times in court to caution Ngozika’s use of words, advising him to directly answer the question asked by the prosecution counsel, M.S. Abubakar.

Trial judge Abang who later discharged Ngozika on Tuesday, had warned the defense witness on the dangers of violating court rules. “I have enormous powers…you have pushed me to the wall,” Abang had said angrily.

Our correspondence could not independently verify if the exchanges between the defense witness and lawyers informed Katu’s decision, but during Wednesday’s proceedings, he prayed the judge to withdraw from the matter, saying that he had informed the prosecution counsel about his decision.

He said he would formally apply for it in case the judge refuses to accept his oral application.

“The Application is to seek specially to withdraw from this matter. In doing so, we have all it takes to appreciate the court’s indulgence,” he said.

On his part, the prosecution counsel, Faruk Abdulah urged the judge to refuse the application of the Senior Counsel and direct that the business of the day be done.

“My lord, while we concede that a defendant has a right to a counsel of his choice and a counsel in a matter can also withdraw at any time he deems fit.

“My only reservation is the non-compliance to Section 349 Sub 8 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (AJA) 2015…,” he added.

In his ruling, trial judge Abang said that Katu’s plan to withdraw from the matter despite supervising the testimony of the first defense witness was an attempt to frustrate the case.

“Katu SAN is counsel to first defendant, he is to conduct proceedings until final judgement.

“My lord, Katu SAN has not offered any reason for seeking to withdraw from the matter; his application to withdraw is to compound issues and to hold the court to ransom.

“In any event, from the record of the court, a notice has not been filed before the court; It is not a sentimental issue, it is an issue of law which cannot be overlooked, notwithstanding the enviable position of the learned SAN.

“The application to withdraw and cause confusion is accordingly refused, “he said.

Speaking further, Abang raised the issue of a subpoena on the Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami and others.

THE WHISTLER reported that the court had issued a subpoena compelling the former acting chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Ibrahim Magu, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana, and the Director of Compliance, Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), among others, to appear before it to testify in the matter.

Ngozika had named them while giving his testimony.

Trial judge Abang said that while the summon was signed by him, it was filed by Maina, who, he said had all the time in world to bring them to testify in his money laundering case.

“First defendant counsel, Mr. A Adibe on December 2020, told the court that he had 24 witnesses and the court adjourned for one month.

“The first defendant filed a subpoena to 10 persons, not filed by the court, I merely signed it,” he said.

He then ordered Katu to present his second defense witness immediately.

But Katu said the next witness had an accident and was unable to attend court.

He asked for an adjournment, which was “grudgingly” agreed to by the prosecution.

“Since the matter was adjourned to March 9,10, 11, I am inclined to adjourned to 11 for the continuation,” Abang ruled.