In a ruling delivered on Monday, Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke said since there was no provision in the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 empowering him to turn down a case assigned to him by the Chief Judge of the court, he could not reject Babalele’s case.
Federal High Court in Lagos has refused to consolidate the trials of Uyiekpen Giwa-Osagie and Abdullahi Babalele, the lawyer and the son-in-law to former Vice President Atiku Abubakar.
He also said he could not consolidate the two matters because there was no legal provision for the consolidation of criminal cases.
“The court will try both charges separately,” Justice Aneke held.
He, therefore, adjourned the cases until April 2, saying he was not sure whether he would be transferred from Lagos to another state.
Justice Aneke explained that the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, had given an instruction to judges not to open new trials pending the conclusion of the arrangement for judges’ transfer.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had charged Giwa-Osagie and Babalele with laundering money during the 2019 general elections, in which Atiku was a presidential candidate on te platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
While Babalele was accused of laundering $140,000, Giwa-Osagie was charged alongside his brother, Erhunse Giwa-Osagie, with the offence of laundering $2 million.
The defendants were first arraigned separately before a vacation judge, Justice Nicholas Oweibo, on August 14 during the court’s annual vacation.
They, however, pleaded not guilty and were granted bail by the court.
After the court resumed from the vacation, Babalele’s case was assigned to Justice Aneke while the Giwa-Osagie brothers’ case was assigned to Justice Chuka Obiozor.
At the instance of the defence counsels, Norrison Quakers and Ahmed Raji, who wanted a joint trial of all the defendants, Justice Tsoho ordered the transfer of Babalele’s case to Justice Aneke.
They then asked Justice Aneke to consolidate the two cases, so that the defendants could be jointly tried.
The lawyers claimed that the facts in the charges were essentially the same and it was better to consolidate the cases before one judge.
