A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory in Maitama, Abuja, has dismissed the bail application filed by a former govenorship candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party in the 2014 election in Osun State, Iyiola Omisore.
Omisore, also a former Deputy Governor of Osun State, was arrested on July 3 and has since been detained in the custody of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission over alleged criminal investigation in relation to about N1.3bn of the Office of the National Security Adviser’s fund traced to him.
The money was said to have been released to him in 2014 by the immediate past NSA, Sambo Dasuki, without any justification.
Justice Olukayode Adeniyi in a ruling on Friday held that Omisore’s bail application was incompetent because it was filed during the period when an order for his remand obtained by the EFCC from another judge of the High Court of the FCT, Justice J.O Okeke, on July 8, was still valid.
While the order to remand him for 14 days was made on July 8, Omisore filed the bail application on July 11.
Justice Adeniyi held that the only option open to Omisore was to await the expiration of the remand order to renew his application for bail.
The judge held that by virtue of the provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, while the order made by Justice Okeke was still subsisting, the same court or any other court of coordinate jurisdiction could not grant the suspect bail, except a court sitting as an appellate jurisdiction.
He also noted that Omisore’s lawyer, Goddie Uche (SAN), failed to show with “any legal submission” that the court had the power to grant bail to the suspect while the court’s order for his remand was still subsisting.
“In the present case, the remand order was issued on July 8, 2016. It is not in dispute that this instant application was filed on the same date on July 8, 2016 and up till date; the said remand order has yet to fully run its course.
“Therefore, by my understanding of the provisions of ACJA, the only time the court is competent to consider whether or not to exercise its discretion to grant bail to a suspect in the same situation with the applicant in the present case is, either pursuant to section 295 of the ACJA at the point the application for remand is made, or in the case when a suspect is still in custody or remand at the expiration of the order of remand pursuant to section 296(1) and (2) of the Act,” the judge said.
He noted that had the attention of Justice Okeke who granted the order remanding Omisore on July 8 been drawn to the fact that the EFCC had on its own, earlier granted an administrative bail to the suspect, perhaps the judge would have considered the propriety of proceeding with the anti-graft commission’s application.
He said Justice Okeke might have on the other hand, exercised his discretion in granting bail to Omisore.
The judge added, “Nevertheless, the court having in its wisdom, and competently so, ordered the remand of the applicant in the first respondent’s (EFCC’s) custody for 14 days which order is still subsisting, any attempt to grant the instant application will be tantamount, in my firm view, to vacating the remand order.
“I do not suppose that the ACJA envisages or contemplates the situation wherein, a court other than a court exercising appellate jurisdiction, having made an order of remand under sections 294 and 296 thereof, should proceed within the lifespan of the same order to make such other order upon the application of the suspect which has the effect of countermanding the remand order.
“The applicant’s learned counsel has failed to show what power this court has and I am not aware of any to make an order in the nature as prayed in the instant application which has the tendency and implication of upturning a subsisting order of my learned brother, Okeke J.
“I must therefore agree with the submissions of the first defendant’s counsel that in the present situation, that the court having made an order for the remand of the applicant for a period of 14 days, cannot turn around to make another order countermanding the same order for remand for the release of the applicant on bail.
“In other words, the issue of bail to the suspect cannot arise before the same court that has validly made an order for his remand during the lifespan of the order.
“In my view, the cause open to the applicant is to await the expiration of the order made on July 8, 2016 and thereafter exercise his rights under section 296(3) of the ACJA to renew his application for bail.
“In totality, and without any further ado, my decision is that the instant application is premature in the circumstance. It is hereby incompetent and inappropriate.
“Even though, I have not considered it on merit, the application must and is hereby dismissed.”
In its counter-affidavit opposing the bail application, the anti-graft commission stated that the former Osun State senator was still being investigated for alleged offences including, retention of proceeds of crime, among others.
Meanwhile, an EFCC’s investigator, Kassim Yusuf, who deposed to the counter-affidavit, stated that Omisore had no justification for the money he received from the ONSA.
Yusuf stated, “Investigation so far carried out, reveals that the applicant received hundreds of millions of naira from the office of the National Security Adviser, with nothing to show for it.
“In the course of interviewing the applicant, he has mentioned names of persons and companies through which monies from the office of the National Security Adviser got to him.
“There is need for those persons and companies mentioned by the applicant to make some clarification.
“If the applicant is granted bail, he will interfere with witnesses and he will also prejudice and frustrate our on-going investigation.”
Yusuf stated that Omisore received the funds through the account of Firmex Gilt Ltd’s bank account domiciled in United Bank for Africa Plc.
The suspect was said to be the sole signatory to the account.
He was also said to have received several payments through account of Sylvan Menamara Ltd with Diamond Bank Plc. The investigator also stated that his agency had as evidence of Omisore’s involvement in the suspicious transaction e-payment schedules, statements of the account and signatory mandate card.
Follow Us
