The Lagos High Court, Ikeja has adjourned its siting till April 23 to rule on the application filed by Justice Mohammed Yinusa, asking it to quash the corruption charges against him.
The trial judge, Justice Sherifat Solebo fixed the date after listening to arguments of parties in the case. On the 18th of January, Justice Yinusa was arraigned on five counts bordering on corruption alongside one Esther Agbo, a staff of the Law Firm of Rickey Tarfa (SAN).
The judge among other things was accused of receiving the sum of N1.5million paid to him by his co-defendant, Esther Agbo in order to give decisions in favour of the Chambers of the Law Firm of Rickey Tarfa.The duo had pleaded not guilty to the charges.
At the resumed hearing of the matter on Friday, Counsel to Justice Yinusa, Robert Clarke (SAN) argued a preliminary objection filed by his client seeking to quash the charges against him.
The lawyer urged the court to follow due process of law with regards to the constitutional provision of law on the discipline of a judicial officer.
Clarke said, “Of the five charges against the defendant, three have been adjudged not guilty by the National Judicial Council (NJC). The remaining two on which he was sanctioned are not included in the charges presently before the court”.
The Counsel also held that, according to the constitution, the position of the NJC must be approved by the presidency and this has not been done for over 22 months.
Clarke, therefore, urged the court not to be dragged into reviewing the decision of the Court of Appeal in Justice Nganjiwa’s case especially as his client is still a serving judicial officer whose appointment had not been terminated by the Presidency.
The EFCC’s counsel, Wahab Shittu, in his response argued that the NJC by virtue of Section 153, 158 of the Constitution, has the powers to appoint, dismiss and discipline any judicial officer.
He urged the court to refuse the defendant’s application seeking to quash the charges as the offences contained in it were within the jurisdiction of the court.
The second defendant also argued that the charges against her were grossly incompetent and unknown to law. She urged the court to decline jurisdiction to entertain the charges and in the alternative quash them.
After listening to all the arguments, Justice Solebo adjourned ruling till April 23.