Again, DSS Fails To Produce Dasuki In Court
The Department of the State Services (DSS) yesterday failed
to produce former national security adviser (NSA, Col Sambo Dasuki,
before an FCT High Court.
At the last adjourned date, the DSS was forced to produce Dasuki in court when the judge insisted that he must be produced before he could proceed with his trial.
During yesterday’s proceedings, prosecutor for the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Mr Rotimi Jacob, informed Justice Husseini Baba Yusuf that the defendant refused to come to court on the ground that his lawyers, Joseph Daudu and Ahmed Raji, would not be in court.
The prosecutor told the court that he persuaded the defendant to come to court to see how the proceedings would be conducted but that the defendant did not yield to his persuasion.
He, therefore, asked the court to begin the trial in the absence of the defendant since the slated business of the court was for the trial to commence.
Jacob also told the court that an operative of DSS had told him that the counsel to the defendant had never made any attempt to come to the DSS Office to meet their client who has been in custody since December last year.
Rotimi Jacob alleged that the refusal of the defendant to come to court was a ploy to scuttle the trial.
However, in a vehement opposition to the claim of the prosecution, Mr. Wale Balogun, who stood for Dasuki, urged Justice Baba Yusuf to disregard the claim of the prosecution, noting that up to this moment, the counsel to the defendant had not been allowed to have access to their client in the custody of the DSS.
Balogun said that the claim of Jacob that a DSS had told him (Jacob) that Dasuki’s lawyers never made attempts to see him in the custody was baseless and unwarranted because he was quoting a third-party.
Dasuki’s lawyer said on the contrary it was the DSS and the prosecution that scuttle the trial by their deliberate refusal to produce the defendant who has been in their custody since last year in court.
The counsel claimed that Rotimi Jacob, as the prosecutor, cannot give evidence from the bar on why the defendant was not brought to court, saying that what he ought to have done was to have filed an affidavit evidence to explain to the court why the defendant was not in court.
Balogun stood his ground that the accused cannot be tried in his absence and without access to his lawyers to prepare effective defence, adding that the prosecution will continue to bungle the trial until they resolve to obey the law and take necessary steps required by law.
Justice Baba Yusuf, in his comment, concurred with Jacob that the business of court was for trial to commence but noted that, that cannot be done in the absence of the defendant and without the permission of the court.
The judge also said it was clear that the information dished out to the court by – that lawyers to Dasuki had not made any effort to access their clients in the custody – was hearsay obtained from unnamed DSS Operatives.
The judge, therefore, agreed with the defence counsel on the need to adjourn the case.
Consequently, the justice adjourned the matter till April 6, 2016 for the prosecution to produce the defendant in court.
At the last adjourned date, the DSS was forced to produce Dasuki in court when the judge insisted that he must be produced before he could proceed with his trial.
During yesterday’s proceedings, prosecutor for the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Mr Rotimi Jacob, informed Justice Husseini Baba Yusuf that the defendant refused to come to court on the ground that his lawyers, Joseph Daudu and Ahmed Raji, would not be in court.
The prosecutor told the court that he persuaded the defendant to come to court to see how the proceedings would be conducted but that the defendant did not yield to his persuasion.
He, therefore, asked the court to begin the trial in the absence of the defendant since the slated business of the court was for the trial to commence.
Jacob also told the court that an operative of DSS had told him that the counsel to the defendant had never made any attempt to come to the DSS Office to meet their client who has been in custody since December last year.
Rotimi Jacob alleged that the refusal of the defendant to come to court was a ploy to scuttle the trial.
However, in a vehement opposition to the claim of the prosecution, Mr. Wale Balogun, who stood for Dasuki, urged Justice Baba Yusuf to disregard the claim of the prosecution, noting that up to this moment, the counsel to the defendant had not been allowed to have access to their client in the custody of the DSS.
Balogun said that the claim of Jacob that a DSS had told him (Jacob) that Dasuki’s lawyers never made attempts to see him in the custody was baseless and unwarranted because he was quoting a third-party.
Dasuki’s lawyer said on the contrary it was the DSS and the prosecution that scuttle the trial by their deliberate refusal to produce the defendant who has been in their custody since last year in court.
The counsel claimed that Rotimi Jacob, as the prosecutor, cannot give evidence from the bar on why the defendant was not brought to court, saying that what he ought to have done was to have filed an affidavit evidence to explain to the court why the defendant was not in court.
Balogun stood his ground that the accused cannot be tried in his absence and without access to his lawyers to prepare effective defence, adding that the prosecution will continue to bungle the trial until they resolve to obey the law and take necessary steps required by law.
Justice Baba Yusuf, in his comment, concurred with Jacob that the business of court was for trial to commence but noted that, that cannot be done in the absence of the defendant and without the permission of the court.
The judge also said it was clear that the information dished out to the court by – that lawyers to Dasuki had not made any effort to access their clients in the custody – was hearsay obtained from unnamed DSS Operatives.
The judge, therefore, agreed with the defence counsel on the need to adjourn the case.
Consequently, the justice adjourned the matter till April 6, 2016 for the prosecution to produce the defendant in court.
Comments
Post a Comment