A Federal High Court in Abuja yesterday agreed to proceed with the trial of former National Security Adviser (NSA) Sambo Dasuki in his absence.
Justice Ahmed Mohammed, in a ruling, said Dasuki’s continued absence from court was without any justification.
Dasuki is standing trial on charges of money laundering and illegal possession of firearms, brought against him by the Federal Government.
Justice Mohammed’s decision to do away with Dasuki’s presence was informed by an application by the prosecution, led by Dipo Okpeseyi (SAN).
At the beginning of proceedings yesterday, Okpeseyi noted that Dasuki, who had written to the court on November 12 and sought the stoppage of his trial, was absent in court.
Okpeseyi urged the court to apply the provision of Section 352(4) of Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), which allows the court to proceed with trial, where the defendant decided to stay away without justifiable reasons.
Okpeseyi told the court the prosecution has complied with its earlier order, directing the prosecution to file an affidavit, stating that Dasuki has refused to attend court.
He noted that Dasuki had, since January this years, failed to attend court on four consecutive adjournments.
The prosecuting lawyer said: “He has been absent for four times. To compound the effrontery, he wrote to this court. That is a direct challenge to the authority of this court. We urge this court not to take the challenge lightly.”
In a counter-argument, Dasuki’s lawyer, Victor Okwudiri, questioned the competence of the affidavit filed by the prosecution. He noted that the seal of the lawyer, who deposed to the affidavit, was not affixed to it as required.
Okwudiri argued that the prosecution’s failure to affix the lawyer’s seal to the affidavit amounted to a breach of Rule 10(1), (2), (3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
He argued that the affidavit failed to comply with the court’s earlier order, which he said, directed the prosecution to state with facts that Dasuki failed to attend court in respect of the day’s proceedings.
The defence lawyer contended that, by its affidavit, the prosecution merely gave an account of the alleged instances of alleged previous refusal of the defendant to come to court but not in relation to yesterday’s proceedings.
Ruling, Justice Mohammed brushed aside the objection raised by the defence lawyer and upheld the argument by the prosecution.
The judge noted that Dasuki wrote a letter dated November 12, 2018 seeking to be excluded from the trial on the grounds that the state had allegedly refused to comply with orders for his release.
Justice Mohammed said, by his letter and his continued absence from court since he wrote the letter, showed that Dasuki was no longer interested in appearing in court for trial.
He said: “It is very clear that the defendant is not willing to be attending court for his trial. I hereby invoke the provision of Section 352(4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, by ordering the trial to proceed in his absence.”
In rejecting the defence’s objection, Justice Mohammed said the affidavit filed by the prosecution, in compliance with the court’s earlier order, was properly filed.
He said the affidavit did not violate the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, as alleged by the defence lawyer.
The judge observed that the lawyer, who deposed to the affidavit, did so in her capacity as a witness and not as a lawyer.
He adjourned to December 11 for the continuation of trial with or without the defendant’s presence.