Monday, 6 May 2013

N1.2 Billion Subsidy Fraud Trial: Son Of PDP Chairman Bamanga Tukur Challenges Court Jurisdiction To Try Him


Mahmud Tukur

Mahmud Tukur, son of the chairman of the People’s Democratic Party’s (PDP), Alhaji Bamanga Tukur, has challenged the jurisdiction of the Ikeja High Court to try him on the charges of fraud brought against him by the Economic And Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) concerning his involvement in a N1.2billion rip-off of the Petroleum Support Fund scheme.
In the suit, which began last year, Mahmud was arraigned alongside Abdullahi Alao, son of another prominent Nigerian, Ibadan-based businessman Arisekola Alao; as well as Alex Ochonogo and their joint company, Eterna Oil Ltd.
However, the trial that was expected to take off today encountered the common judicial setback of technicalities and obstructions, as Mahmud chose to challenge the legal capacity of the court.  
His attorney, Wole Olanipekun claimed that his client was willing to respond to the allegations of fraud preferred against him but for the jurisdiction of the court in which he is being tried.
Mr. Olanipekun also claimed that the defense was in talks with the EFCC over the subsidy fund trial, but the EFCC immediately denied knowledge of such talks with Mahmud or his legal representatives.  EFCC lawyer, Rotimi Jacobs, stressed that he was not instructed by the EFCC as to any such discussions.
Justice Adeniyi Onigbanjo had initially fixed today and tomorrow, the 6th and 7th of May 2013 for trial, but in view of today’s developments, he adjourned hearing on Mahmud’s application for 28th May.  He also announced that fixing of new trial dates after the ones vacated this week will be no sooner than November 2013.
An observer who witnessed today’s court proceedings said he saw it as a scripted move to interrupt the trial process as it is the usual way rich suspects explore judicial loopholes in Nigeria to break down procedures of their trials.
Justice Onigbanjo gave Mahmud Tukur seven days to properly file his application challenging the court’s jurisdiction, and an equal amount of time for the EFCC to respond to it

No comments:

Post a Comment