The Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday declined to hear the application by the detained National President of Miyetti Allah Kauta Kore, Bello Bodejo, to review the conditions attached to the N2 billion bail granted him days ago.
Justice Inyang Ekwo, in a ruling, said that since the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is contesting the review application, the court might be unable to conclude its proceedings before the court vacation commences.
|
|
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the EFCC charged Mr Bodejo with money laundering involving $2.63 million allegedly traced to the Bauchi State Government.
On Monday, the judge granted Mr Bodejo a N2 billion bail with two sureties.
|
|
|
|---|
The judge ordered that one of the sureties must present a three-year tax clearance evidence and must reside within the court’s jurisdiction, while the second sureties must have a land worth N2 billion in Abuja.
On Thursday, Mr Bodejo’s lawyer, Mohammed Sheriff, informed the court of his client’s application for variation of the bail conditions.
Prosecution lawyer Fatai Erewunmi, said he was served with the application and had responded by filing a counter affidavit.
However, upon review, the judge believed he might not conclude the proceedings regarding the application, which the EFCC is challenging, before the court’s vacation.
The judge then advised parties to approach a vacation judge, during the court’s vacation, to hear the application.
He said after then, the substantive case can be returned for trial before his court.
Justice Ekwo adjourned the matter until 5 October for the commencement of trial.
The EFCC accused Mr Bodejo of accepting 100,000 dollars from Sa’idu Abubakar a former Accountant-General of Bauchi State who is currently in the lawful custody of the Nigerian Police Force, among other cash in hard currency.
READ ALSO: Alleged Money Laundering: Court grants Miyetti Allah leader N2 billion bail
The EFCC said the sum exceeded the statutory cash transaction threshold of N5 million prescribed under Section 1(a) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 (as amended), without routing the said transaction through a financial institution as required by law.
He was said to have committed an offence contrary to Section 16(1)(d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 (as amended) and punishable under Section 16(2)(b) of the same Act,
The offence is said to be contrary to Section 19(1)(d) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022 and punishable under Section 19(2)(b) of the same Act.
(NAN)
