Abacha to Face Trial on Graft: Supreme Court Orders

Mohammed Abacha, son of late Head of State, General Sani Abacha reportedly at the Supreme Court, Abuja lost his legal battle to stop the Federal Government from prosecuting him on a 123 count criminal charges brought against him for allegedly receiving stolen money belonging to the government.

 

In a unanimous judgment on Friday, the apex court ordered the appellant to go back to an Abuja high Court and face his trial as his appeal challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court lacks merit.

 

The Attorney General of the Federation, in exercising powers vested in him under section 174 of the 1999 constitution had filed four different criminal charges containing 123 counts against Abacha and Abubakar Atiku Bagudu relating to conspiracy under section 97 [1] of the Penal code; receiving stolen property dishonestly under section 317 of the Penal Code and concealing stolen property under section 319 of the penal code law.

 

However, Abacha, in a fight back, challenged the jurisdiction of the trial high court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) on the ground that having regards to the peculiar facts leading to those charges, it would be needless putting him on trial as no offence had been disclosed in the supporting proof of evidence and that even if offences were disclosed, no prima facie case had been made against him to warrant his trial.

 

But before the objections could be taken by the court, he brought another application to the appellate court by way of referral under section 295 of the constitution where he raised three questions before the court for determination.

 

The questions relate to whether the same court can exercise its judicial powers under section 6 [6] [a] of the 1999 constitution to determine his civil rights and obligation by putting him on a trial in view of the provisions of Forfeiture of Assets, [Certain Persons] decree No. 53 of 1999, an existing law and an Act of the National Assembly which has resolved the issues of criminal liability arising out of those charges?”

 

He further questioned the effect of Decree No. 53 of 1999 on his innocence or otherwise as it relates to the 111 counts in his trial as to whether the criminal issues the court is seeking to determine have not been concluded therein and if answered in the affirmative, does the court possess the justification to hear criminal allegations on an issue that has been resolved by an Act of Parliament?

 

The crux of his case was that whether any fund dealt with by his late father in his capacity as Head of State can be questioned by another administration in the face of all the Decrees that enabled him to exercise unlimited powers and in that view whether the charges based as they are on receiving stolen properties can be entertained by the high court.