Home/News/Court Denies Babalakin’s Plea To Sit Outside Dock

Court Denies Babalakin’s Plea To Sit Outside Dock

A Lagos High Court presided over by Justice Adeniyi Onigbanjo today denied the chairman of Bi-Courtney, Mr. Wale Babalakin his plea to sit outside the dock during the resumption of his trial over money laundering.

Justice Onigbanjo also ordered Mr. Babalakin to consolidate into one, two applications filed seeking to quash the charges against him.

Mr. Babalakin and 4 others are facing a 27-count charge of allegedly laundering about N4.7 billion on behalf of the convicted former governor of Delta State, James Ibori under the guise of purchasing a Challenger Jet Aircraft.

The judge’s ruling followed arguments from Mr. Lateef Fagbemi, the lead counsel to Mr. Babalakin, and Mr. Rotimi Jacobs, the counsel to the EFCC.

When the proceedings commenced, Mr. Fagbemi (SAN) made a peculiar request asking presiding Justice Onigbanjo to allow his client leave the dock and sit in or near the bar.

The counsel quoted Section 210 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Lagos, 2011. The section provides that “where a defendant appears before the court on a summons, he may be required to enter the dock, stand or sit adjacent to it as may be ordered by the court”.

But the counsel to the EFCC, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mr. Jacobs, opposed the request. For him, the section did not refer to sitting in the outer or inner bar with the other lawyers. The prosecution stressed that justice must be seen to be done to all and not to the status of one.

Justice Onigbanjo, however, held that the section of the law refers to a defendant who appears before the court on a summons and not one like Mr. Babalakin who appeared before the court on information.

The defendant was, therefore, ordered to remain in the dock.

On the arguments on the applications filed by Mr. Babalakin to quash the charges against him, Justice Onigbanjo noted that there were two of such applications seeking the same objective.

While the defence counsel, Mr. Fagbemi insisted that they had different grounds, the prosecution countered by saying that it was an abuse of court process and a move aimed at delaying the trial. He, therefore, urged the court to strike out one of the applications.

The arguments went back and forth for almost 30 minutes on the propriety of taking the two applications seeking the same relief.

After listening to the arguments and the submissions of other lawyers in the matter, Justice Onigbanjo ordered the defendants to consolidate their applications.

He then adjourned the case till the 27th of March.

Channels Television