Pension Fraud: ‘You Lied’ – Judge Refuses To Oblige Maina’s Request

The defense of the embattled former chairman of the defunct Pension Reform Task Team, Abdulrasheed Maina will not be allowed, a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has ruled.

Maina had on Thursday urged the court to reopen his defense in the money laundering case instituted against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

Maina was arraigned in 2019 on a 12 count charge bordering on alleged stealing of pension funds and money laundering.

The application was announced by Maina’s lawyer, Anayo Adibe on Thursday after the same court convicted his (Maina) son, Faisal on three-count charge of fraud while sentencing him to 24 years ( 14 years concurrently) in his absence.

THE WHISTLER had reported that the court had on July 16, closed the Faisal’s father’s privilege to call witnesses in the case owing to his absence during proceedings.

But Maina’s lawyer argued in his affidavit that his client’s second witness was not in court to continue his testimony because he had no notice of the trial on July 16.

He added that it was expedient to seek order of the court to avail the defendant his right to fair hearing.

“We have a motion dated 6th of August, 2021, the application is seeking for an order of your lordship setting aside the order of foreclosure of the first defendant’s defense made on the 16th of July 2021.

“It is also seeking for your lordship’s order reopening the defendant’s defense in the interest of fair hearing and interest,” he had said.

Adibe contended that he was not served with hearing notice for the July 16 proceedings even though another lawyer represented his client.

Maina’s lawyer insisted the trial court did not have jurisdiction in making order foreclosing the right of defendant to call witnesses when he was not in court.

Counsel for the EFCC, Faruk Abdullah had opposed the defendant counsel’s prayer on the grounds that he did not appeal the order foreclosing his defense.

Addullah argued that it amounted to abuse of court process for Maina to bring such application to court without appealing previous rulings of the court.

“I urge your lordship to resist the application for lacking in merit and order that the final written addresses of parties be adopted,” he argued.

In his ruling on Friday, presiding judge, Okong Abang said the main issue for determination was whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the application.

The judge recalled that Maina had jumped bail when he fled the country leading to the brief jailing of his surety, Senator Ali Ndume.

Abang held that even when the court made findings on Maina’s violation of court rules, he refused to appeal the order foreclosing his defense.

“The defendant resurfaced after he was rearrested which led to him being remanded,” the judge explained.

On not being served hearing notice for the July 16 proceedings, the judge said that the bailiff of the court did serve the court processes on Maina and the Nigeria Correctional Centre where he is remanded.

The judge further recalled that a prison warder told him on July 16 that Maina was not in the courtroom but was seated in a van of the Nigeria Correctional Service outside the court because he had knee problems.

Abang said the court does not wait for anybody and it was the business of parties to pursue their case or have themselves to blame.

“My lords, it is not true that the defendant counsel was not served hearing notice of July 16. I so good.

“If the defendant was not served with hearing notice as alleged, why did another lawyer announce appearance for Maina.

“It is my view that the defendant counsel lied on oath,” he said.

The judge ruled that the defendant has not obeyed the order for parties to file their written addresses

“The only civilized and lawful way to react to a court order is to appeal.

“Having not appealed the court decision of July 16, the defendant cannot pray the court to sit on appeal,” he said.

Subsequently, the trial judge held that the court lacks jurisdiction to reopen his defense.

“In light of the above reasoning and conclusion, the application lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed,” he ruled.

Reacting, EFCC counsel Faruk Abdullah, urged the court to proceed to adopt his written address.

But Adibe asked the court to avail him time to file his own address.

Abdulah opposed the call for adjournment, adding that the defendant cannot dictate to the court how to conduct proceedings.

“The order made by the court are not for fun, the defense had almost three months to comply with order of court,” he said.

Based on court rules, after parties have filed and adopted their final written addresses, the judge will then adjourn the case for judgement.