Follow Us on Google
By Odunayo Ayotunde
That the eminent businessman and former Governor of Abia State, Dr. Orji Uzor Kalu, is facing legal battle over some of his actions while in office as Chief Executive Officer of “God’s Own State” does not come to many as a surprise.
His travails started when he was seen as a stumbling block to former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s dream of manipulating the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to achieve his third term ambition. The same Obasanjo that christened Orji Kalu “Action Governor” subsequently deployed state machinery to ‘deal’ with him by ensuring that his business interests were jeopardised, including the withdrawal of SLOK Airline’s licence, closure of Hallmark Bank (where Kalu had substantial interest) and, above all, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) was deployed under the leadership of Nuhu Ribadu to nail Kalu on the head.
However, the EFCC and those prompting it know that Kalu was an accomplished businessman before venturing into politics. His antecedents are there in the archives to justify his enormous wealth before assuming public office.
As an under-30, Kalu had become a millionaire by British standards and was the principal owner of the flourishing Slok Group of Companies, comprising virtually all forms of blue-chip businesses, majorly oil, banking, hotel, publishing, telecoms, property, maritime and automobile entrepreneurship, among other investment portfolios. The politician is also a large employer of labour through his business entities, including Slok Nigeria Ltd, Happy Home Furniture, Mak Travels Agency, Slok Energy, Slok Shipping and others.
The vendetta against the business mogul, however, reached its climax on July 27, 2007, when Kalu was first arraigned by the EFCC over alleged corruption. However, the case was stalled. The matter was later resuscitated, following a ruling by the Supreme Court. Hearing of the matter had already commenced at a Federal High Court in Abuja presided over by Justice Anuli Chikere, when the EFCC, curiously, applied to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Ibrahim Auta, that the case be transferred to the Lagos Division, after nine years of inactivity.
A lot of criticisms trailed the action of the commission, to the extent that Chief Kalu’s lawyer, Amobi Nzelu, had to petition the Acting Chairman of the EFCC, Mr. Ibrahim Magu. The letter, titled, “Re: Transfer of Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CR/56/07, Federal Republic of Nigeria vs. Orji Uzor Kalu and two others: Appeal for Re-Consideration,” was copied to the Attorney-General of the Federation and the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court. Despite the petition, the suit was later transferred to Lagos. Then in their quest to ensure that the anomaly was corrected, Kalu and other co-accused filed a suit seeking the reversal of the EFCC’s action.
In an originating summons brought out by lawyer to the second and third defendants, Chief Solo Akuma (SAN), the court was asked to declare that the purported transfer of charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/56/07, Federal Government of Nigeria vs. Orji Uzor Kalu and two others from High Court No. 5, Abuja, to Federal High Court, Lagos Division, at the instance of the third defendant, without compliance by the 1st defendant with the provisions of Section 98(3) and (4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, was null, void and of no effect. Joined in the suit are the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Federal Republic of Nigeria, EFCC and Orji Uzor Kalu.
The plaintiffs also want the court to declare that the request of the third defendant, dated May 19, 2016, to the first defendant to transfer the case from the Abuja division of the court to Lagos division and the transfer of the said charge were tantamount to forum shopping and, therefore, null, void and of no effect. In addition, the court was asked to declare that the plaintiffs were denied their right to fair hearing when the Chief Judge entertained and ordered the transfer of the said charge to the Lagos division of the court without complying with the provisions of Section 98(3) and (4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, and thus rendered the purported transfer null, void and of no effect.
The plaintiffs are, however, praying the court for an order setting aside the transfer of the case from Abuja to Lagos. The plaintiffs also want the court to direct that the case be returned to the Abuja division of the court. In their questions for determination, the plaintiffs want the court to determine whether the Chief Judge can order the transfer of the case pending at the Abuja Division to the Lagos Division upon the request of the EFCC without complying with the mandatory provisions of the law. They also want the court to determine whether the rights of the plaintiffs to fair hearing were not infringed upon, following the purported transfer of the charge as ordered by the Chief Judge at the behest of the EFCC from the Abuja Division of the court to Lagos Division, without complying with mandatory provisions of law.
Furthermore, the plaintiffs want the court to decide whether the request of the EFCC, dated May 19, 2016, to the CJ to transfer the case from Abuja to Lagos and the purported transfer of the said case is not tantamount to forum shopping.
Kalu had, earlier in an ex parte application filed through his team of lawyers, comprising Awa Kalu (SAN), Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), Solomon Akuma (SAN), Chief Nwufo (SAN) and Chief Gordy Uche (SAN), sought an order of mandamus compelling the EFCC and the Attorney-General of the Federation to try him in the Abuja Division of the court. The applicant, in the motion brought pursuant to order 34, Rule 1 [a] and 3 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) rules, 2009, and Section 6[6] [a] of the 1999 Constitution, sought the leave of court to apply for the issuance of an order of mandamus compelling the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court to remit suit No. FHC/ABJ/CR/56/07, Federal Republic of Nigeria vs. Orji Uzor Kalu and two others, which was transferred from the Abuja division of the court to Lagos, back to Abuja for continuation of hearing.
Kalu also asked for an order that the leave so granted shall operate as a stay of all actions, matters or issues ancillary to or relating to or pertaining to or connected with the case, pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
Attached to the suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/845/2016, was a supporting affidavit of 16 paragraphs and an affidavit of urgency deposed to by Ikechukwu Njoku, a legal practitioner.
The deponent averred that the suit brought against the applicant was commenced in 2007 after he left office as Governor of Abia State. He added that, after office, the applicant did not contest any elective office because he wanted to retire to private and quiet life in his home town, Igbere, Abia State.
According to the deponent, “Due to the case brought against him by the EFCC, he temporarily relocated to Abuja to face trial alongside others charged with him.
“After he entered his plea of not guilty to all the charges and was subsequently granted bail by the court, his trial was delayed by some interlocutory applications that travelled to the Supreme Court. That in 2016, the Supreme Court ordered that the case be returned to the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court for trial. That acting in strict compliance with the judgment of the Supreme Court, the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Ibrahim Auta (third respondent), assigned the case to Justice Anuli Chikere for trial.
“It is the case of the applicant that all parties appeared before Justice Chikere on two occasions and the matter was adjourned due to pending appeal before the Supreme Court.”
The deponent further averred, in the supporting affidavit, that on the third occasion the court ordered that the defendant (Kalu) alongside others should take their plea, which they did and were admitted on bail. He also asked: “That the court, alongside the prosecution and defence team, agreed for three clear dates and the matter was adjourned to December 6, 7, and 8, 2016, for definite trial, thereafter, all the parties left the court to prepare for adjourned dates.
“Surprisingly and without consultation with other parties and the defence team of the applicant, the EFCC (first respondent), which is the prosecuting agency, approached the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court (third respondent) and asked for a transfer of the case to Lagos judicial division of the Federal High Court.”
However, despite mounting opposition to the transfer of the case, the EFCC eventually had its way.
Kalu and others were on October 31, 2016, re-arraigned on a 34-count charge of alleged N3.2 billion fraud before Justice Mohammed Idris of the Federal High Court, Lagos.
On the occasion, Kalu’s lawyer, Chief Mike Ozhekome (SAN), also expressed his displeasure at the action of the EFCC in seeking for the transfer of the case from Abuja to Lagos. He said: “When we learnt that the case had been transferred from Abuja to Lagos, we protested because there was no formal application to that effect from the prosecution. The desirability or otherwise of transferring the matter would have been determined through the application.
“However, we were comfortable and our fears were dispelled when we learnt that the case was before my Lord. We believed that justice would be served in the case with my Lordship in charge and so we are not opposed to the re-arraignment of the accused persons.”
In his own submissions, lawyer to the second and third accused persons, Solo Akuma (SAN), informed the court about a pending application challenging the transfer of the case from Abuja to Lagos, saying the action violated certain provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015.
He said: “Though we are here in due obedience to the hearing notice served on us, we are in no way waiving our rights in challenging the transfer of the case from Abuja to Lagos.”
Kalu and other co-accused persons were later allowed to continue on the existing bail conditions.
As the trial of Kalu and others begins today at the Federal High Court, Lagos, it is hoped that justice will eventually be done in the matter, as the masses will be at the losing end of the on-going vendetta. As a businessman, most of his businesses are already suffering, in the face of reputation damage caused by the lingering trial.
The question then goes, now that the government is worried about mass retrenchment in companies, will the same government watch the business interests of the businessman-cum-politician suffer in the face of this persecution? I hope this will not be allowed to happen because it will ultimately have negative consequences on his businesses and may result in the folding up and, ultimately, loss of job for many Nigerians and non-Nigerians alike.
While we are not against the anti-corruption crusade, it is important to investigate the rationale behind the prosecution of some politically-exposed persons known to have been successful before their sojourn into politics.
• Ayotunde wrote in from Lagos.
