Court of Appeal Fixes Date to Hear Orji Kalu's Appeal

Court of Appeal Fixes Date to Hear Orji Kalu’s Appeal

Orji Uzor Kalu contended that it would amount to “miscarriage of justice,” to compel him to defend a matter in which no “prima facie” case has been established against him.

The Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, will on 7th February, 2019, hear an appeal filed by a former Abia State Governor, Dr. Orji Uzor Kalu, against the ruling of Justice Mohammed Idris of a Federal High Court in Lagos dismissing his no case submission against an alleged fraud charge slammed on him and two others by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

The court will also on the same date hear separate appeals filed by Kalu’s co-accused, Udeh Jones Udeogu and Slok Nigeria Limited, in similar circumstance.

The presiding judge, Justice Garuba Lawal, fixed the date after listening to submissions of appellants’ lawyers; S. E. Elema (SAN), Solo Akuma (SAN) and K. C. Nwofo(SAN), regarding the transmission of record of appeal. The EFCC was represented at yesterday’s proceedings by Adebisi Adeniyi.

Justice Idris had on 31st July, 2018, held that Kalu has some explanations to make particularly on certain documents tendered by the EFCC as exhibits in evidence against him.

The judge said: “I am of the view that the defendants have some explanations to make in the light of the exhibits and the evidence so far led. Again, I will say no more. The no-case submission is dismissed”.

Dissatisfied, Kalu through his lawyer, Chief Awa Kalu (SAN) filed a notice of appeal dated 1st August, 2018, asking that the lower court’s verdict be overturned.

In the notice of appeal, Kalu maintained that all the evidences supplied by the prosecution witnesses had no “nexus,” with him, and as such there was no way a prima facie case against him would have been established.

The former governor contended that it would amount to “miscarriage of justice,” to compel him to defend a matter in which no “prima facie” case has been established against him.

In one of the grounds of the appeal, the former governor said the lower court erred in law when it held that he has a case to answer “notwithstanding the fact that the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses neither had any nexus with him nor make out a prima facie case against the appellant.

On the particulars of the error, he maintained that none of the prosecution witnesses gave any evidence linking him with any of the charges.

He added that there was no evidence that any of his co-accused acted at his behest or on his behalf.

“No fund whatsoever was neither traced to the personal bank accounts of the appellant nor was the appellant shown to have personally benefitted himself from the said funds alleged to have been stolen or laundered.

“No financial document was shown to have been made or any financial transaction shown to have been performed or transacted by the appellant in relation to the funds the subject matter of the charge.

“The prosecution had not made out a case against the appellant. There was nothing for the appellant to defend and no justification for the appellant to be put through the rigors of a full trial”, he said.

On ground two, Kalu contended that the lower court erred in law when it held that “Exhibits B1-B28, 34, J, L, N1-N15, P1-P34, T8 and U” linked him with the offences charged and thereby required him to make some explanations by way of entering into his defence.

Four particulars of error that accompanied this ground are:

“None of the documentary evidence and financial records were made by the appellant or had any bearing to the appellant.

“The exhibits mentioned above did not show prima facie evidence of conspiracy or money laundering against the appellant.

“The appellant cannot be expected to prove his innocence when there is no nexus between him and the evidence led by the prosecution.

“The appellant will suffer gross miscarriage of justice to be compelled to defend a matter in which no prima facie case had been made out against him”.

The former governor is consequently asking the Court of Appeal to set aside the ruling of the Federal High Court delivered in respect of the case on July 31.