 |
| Former Governor of Benue State, Gabriel Suswam |
Justice Okon Abang of Federal High Court, Abuja on Tuesday, November 5, 2019 adjourned the trial of former governor of Benue State, Gabriel Suswam till November 6, 2019 to enable him attend to legislative functions in the National Assembly.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC is prosecuting Suswam and the Commissioner for Finance in his administration, Omadachi Okolobia on N3.1billion money laundering charges.
Counsel to Suswam, Chinelo Ogbozor had asked for an adjournment to enable her client, who is a senator and first defendant to attend to a national issue in the Senate. “There is an issue of national importance that affects the senatorial district of the first defendant who is serving senator from Benue State and also a sponsor of the motion,” Ogbozor said.
She added that the issue affecting Suswam’s senatorial district, slated for discussion in the Senate today affects the leadership of the Federal High Court and the nation as a whole, noting that exercise of legislative function cannot be considered a danger to justice.
Prosecution counsel, Rotimi Jacobs, SAN, however, opposed the application, saying that a prosecution witness who was already testifying in court, needed to round off. He further noted that the remaining two senators from Suswam’s Benue were capable of representing the interest of the state on the matter.
While upholding the application of the defence, Justice Abang held that adjournment was at the discretion of the court, which the court he said was expected to exercise judiciously by considering the competing rights of parties.
He added that Suswam is presumed innocent of the charges brought against him until the contrary is proven by the prosecution.
According to Abang, “If he Suswam is to participate in proceedings at the National Assembly which is of national importance, my lords, I am inclined to adjourn the matter for this purpose as he is presumed to be innocent of the charges until proven guilty,” adding that there was no sacrifice too much for the court to make “in order to balance the competing rights of parties before justice is done.”
