A Federal High Court in Lagos on Monday held that the arrest warrant against Ezekiel Onyedikachi for alleged fraudulent conversion still subsists.
Justice Alexander Owoeye said this while adjourning the criminal charges against Onyedikachi, a former manager of gospel singer Mercy Chinwo.
On January 16, Justice Owoeye had issued the arrest warrant following an ex-parte application by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
Mercy Chinwo alleged that Onyedikachi diverted approximately $345,000 in royalties due to her, without remittance.
EFCC counsel Mrs. Bilikisu Buhari informed the court that the prosecution had been unable to serve the charges on Onyedikachi, as he had been unreachable.
The court subsequently granted the application for an arrest warrant against the defendant.
At the last adjourned date on January 24, defence counsel Dr. Monday Ubani undertook to accept service of the charge on behalf of the defendant. However, the defence counsel informed the court of a preliminary objection challenging the charge.
The court then adjourned the case for the defendant’s arraignment.
When the case was called on Monday, Ubani appeared for the defendant, while Mr. Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN) represented the prosecution.
Ubani informed the court that the case was supposed to be for the defendant’s arraignment, but the defence had a notice of preliminary objection before the court.
However, the judge asked him: “Where is the defendant?”
In response, he informed the court that he received a call from the defendant, who claimed to have had a terrible accident that morning and assured the court that he would be available at the next date.
When defence counsel attempted to move his objection, the court declined, stating that he could not be heard until the defendant appeared in court.
Justice Owoeye held that the court had not assumed jurisdiction over the case, as the defendant’s plea had not been taken.
The prosecutor, Mr. Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), described the defence’s procedure as strange. Citing provisions of sections 396(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act and judicial authorities from State vs Achara and FRN vs Yahaya Bello, he urged the court not to hear the defence.
“My lord, it is a show of shame and outright disrespect for this court, for the defendant to be absent on three different occasions in a criminal trial,” he said
The prosecutor informed the court that, shortly after the last adjournment, the defendant was seen on the court’s premises giving a media interview. He described this as shameful and a complete dishonour to the court, emphasising that it was inappropriate for a defendant to display such behaviour.
He further stated that if the defendant was indeed unwell, as claimed by his counsel, this should have been substantiated through an affidavit presented to the court.
In light of this, Oyedepo urged the court to issue a bench warrant to compel the defendant’s attendance, stressing that it was necessary to uphold the integrity of the court.
Though the defence counsel objected to the bench warrant, promising to personally ensure the defendant’s appearance, the prosecution argued that the defence’s integrity was not the issue at hand. Oyedepo reiterated his request for the court to issue a legal order compelling the defendant to appear.
In a brief ruling, the court noted that the earlier bench warrant was still valid, as it had not been withdrawn.
The court ordered that the defendant must appear for arraignment at the next adjourned date, either through the existing bench warrant or through his defence counsel’s production.
By agreement of the counsels, the case was adjourned until March 6 for arraignment.