A Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday fixed Jan. 24 for ruling on an application filed by a suspect, Adun Adewale, who begged to retake his plea after pleading guilty to a charge.

Justice Emeka Nwite fixed the date for Adewale to either be convicted for pleading guilty to count one of the two-count charge or be ordered to retake the plea.

The development occured after Adewale’s lawyer, O.

A. Olaleye, and the police counsel, Victor Okoye, addressed the court on the propriety of the application.

Report says that though Adewale had, on Dec. 20, 2024, pleaded guilty to count one of the cybercrime offences when he was arraigned; the defendant, in count two, said he “pleaded guilty with reason” when it was read to him by the registrar.

When Justice Nwite asked him what was the reason, Adewale explained from the dock that he saw the post somewhere and he forwarded it to his page.

His lawyer, Olaleye, therefore, prayed the court for a stand down in order to confer with his client.

Although Okoye opposed the application, the judge stood down the matter in the interest of justice.

After the court reconvened, Adewale’s lawyer told the court that he had discussion with his client and Adewale told him that he (defendant) did not understand the charge read to him.

Based on this premise, the lawyer prayed the court for the charge to be read again for his client to take his plea.

But Okoye vehemently opposed the application and the judge adjourned for the parties to address the court through a written address on the position of the law in such instance.

When the matter was called on Friday, Okoye informed the court that the court had, on Dec. 20, 2024, directed parties to filed their written  addresses concerning the defendant’s plea.

“We have filed my lord,” he said.

Responding, Olaleye acknowledged that though the court directed them to file their written addresses, he said the defence came by way of motion on notice for the defendant to change his plea.

“How do you came about this?” the judge asked Olaleye.

Olaleye said though the court ordered parties to file written addresses, he said the defence came by way of motion on notice due to the necessity to place facts leading to the circumstances which led to the arraignment and the eventual plea of the defendant before the court.

“My lord, coming by way of motion on notice is not to flout the order of the court but to assist the court in seeing reasonable cause why the court should exercise its discretionary power to grant the application of the defendant my lord.

“However, if my lord rules that he will discountenance the motion and the affidavit, we will be placing reliance on our written address my lord dated 27th day of December, 2024, and filed on 30th day of December, 2024 my lord.

“And we will be adopting same as our argument on this issue and we urge the court to grant our application,” he said.

Making his submission, Okoye said their written address, dated Dec. 31, 2024, was filed same day.

The police lawyer, who said he placed reliance on the written address, prayed the court to convict Adewale and sentence him accordingly on the first count which he directly pleaded guilty of.

“The basis of our argument is that the honourable court observed the defendant’s valid arraignment. The court asked if we were ready and we all said yes,” Okoye told the court.

Olayele, who objected, said: “There was no time I said I was ready for the arraignment my lord.”

Justice Nwite then read from the court record the proceeding of Dec. 24, 2024, in open court to clarify the argument.

“Why didn’t you object to the readiness of the arraignment,” the judge asked Olaleye.

But Okoye argued that the issue of plea can never be delegated from a defendant to his counsel.

“We submit that counsel cannot stand in the shoe of the defendant to inform the court that he wants to change the defendant’s plea.

“Counsel admitted that he was the person who informed the court that he wants a stand down and never the defendant.

“Even assuming, but not conceding, that my lord is to look at the affidavit filed by the defendant, all the information given was never made by the defendant but by his counsel.

“We submit that issues of plea is a sole prerogative or responsibility of a defendant and not his counsel,” he said.

Okoye further argued that if the court was minded to look at the defence affidavit, he said the motion was incompetent by virtue of Section 115 of the Evidence Act.

“This is so because the counsel who made the deposition was not in the position to give the information as stated in the affidavit,” he said, urging the court to discountenance same.

According to him, we are placing a reliance on the written address in urging the court to convict the defendant and sentence him in compliance with all the laws and in the interest of justice.

Responding, Olaleye said Okoye’s argument on the issue of the affidavit was strange to him.

He said though he did not depose to the affidavit himself, he said a litigation officer did.

“We actually filed a reply on points of law.

“I did not do the affidavit myself. As counsel, I am well aware of the facts of the matter.

“So I can authoritatively give firsthand information on facts about the matter to a litigation assistant my lord,” he said.

Besides, Olaleye insisted that he never applied to the court to change the defendant’s plea.

“I only applied to the honourable court to have the charge re-read to the defendant and to retake his plea,” he clarified.

The defence lawyer equally raised the issue of bail for his client but Okoye disagreed with him, saying: “I don’t think we can adjourn for bail when we are having a serious issue here.”

The judge, however, confirmed from the record that the matter was adjourned for party to address the court and for defendant’s bail.

Justice Nwite, who said issues of bail cannot be determined at present, adjourned the matter until Jan. 24 for ruling on either to convict Adewale on count one or grant his application to retake the plea.

The suspect, also known as “Coachbanter,” was arraigned before Justice Nwite on alleged cybercrime offence against the I-G, Kayode Egbetokun.

The I-G had, in the charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/634/2024, sued Adewale as sole defendant.

In the charge filed on Dec. 17 by A.A. Egwu, the defendant was alleged to have, sometime in 2024, intentionally sent video recording by means of computer system and network through his Tiktok username: “@brodabanter_backup_page” and handle “CoachBanter.”

Adewale was alleged to have said in the said video, “Police IG Egbetokun busted for colluding with notorious cartel moving cash from CBN (Central Bank of Nigeria) vault via Abuja, Lagos airport.”

The statement he knew to be false, “for the purpose of causing a breakdown of law and order.”

The offence is said to be contrary to and punishable under Section 24 (1) (b) of Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024.

In count two, he was also alleged to have sent a video through his Tiktok username accusing Egbetokun of victimising police officers to shield members of a cartel notorious for hauling suspicious new bank notes from the CBN.

The statement, which was said to be false, was contrary to and punishable under Section 24 (1) (b) of Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024.(NAN)

An Abuja High Court on Monday, ordered the release of Alhaji Bello Bodejo, President of the Miyetti Allah Kautal Hore, from the Department of State Service (DSS) detention.

Justice Mohammed Zubairu, in a ruling, described Bodejo’s detention since Dec. 9 after his arrest and without being charged to court as unlawful.

Justice Zubairu made the order following an application for the order of habeas corpus subjiciendum moved against the respondents by Bodejo’s lawyer, Reuben Atabo, SAN.

The judge held that the application was meritorious having not been challenged by the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and the DSS DG, who are 1st and 2nd respondents.

“The applicant is hereby released from the 2nd respondent’s detention,” he declared.

Justice Zubairu, however, said that Bodejo’s release from detention is not tantamount to an acquittal.

He, therefore, ordered Atabo, who appeared for him, to ensure that Bodejo is produced before the respondents should there be any reason to file charges against him.

He equally warned the respondents not to detain him beyond the constitutional provisions.

Report says that Bodejo, in an ex-parte motion marked: M/16976/2024, sued the AGF and DSS DG.

Bodejo, in the motion dated and filed on Dec. 19, had prayed the court to order his release from the detention of DSS pending the hearing and determination of the substantive application.

He also sought an order granting him leave to apply for the order of habeas corpus subjiciendum against the respondents.

Report says that habeas corpus subjiciendum is a Latin phrase and a legal term used to describe a writ that is directed to someone who is detaining another person to inquire into the legality of the detention.

Justice Zubairu grant leave to Bodejo’s lawyer to apply for an order of habeas corpus.

He also ordered that the substantive application be filed within 24 hours from the day tye order was made for the purpose of determining the merit or other wise of the application.

The judge held that having found out that Bodejo was yet to be arraigned before a court of law since his arrest, made an order that he should be produced before the court today, Dec. 30, or admit him to an administrative bail.

When the matter was called on Monday, Atabo informed the court that Bodejo was yet to be produced in court.

He, however, said that the respondent’s lawyer told him that his client was within  the court premises.

He sought a stand down for him to be produced in court.

When the court reconvened, Bodejo, in company of security agents, walked into the courtroom.

Atabo then informed the court that his client was in court and that he was ready to move their substantive motion slated for today for hearing.

He said the motion, dated Dec. 24, was filed “pursuant to your lordship order that we should filed within 24 hours.”

He said it was also brought  pursuant to Order 47 of the Civil Procedure Rules of the court and in compliance with Sections 34, 35, 36 of the 1999 Constitution.

“We sought for your lordship order of habeas corpus subjiciendum commanding the respondents to produce the applicant from custody for the purpose of being released from detention and for such further order,” he said.

He said the application was supported by a 13-paragraph affidavit deposed to by Hauwa Bodejo, the senior wife to the applicant.

According to Atabo, before your lordship, there is no counter affidavit in opposition to the deposition of Hauwa Bodejo.

Citing a previous case, the senior lawyer argued that where there is affidavit and there is no opposition, it is deemed to be correct.

“We urge your lordship to deem the deposition of Hauwa Bodejo as the correct deposition,” he said.

The lawyer further said that Bodejo had been in detention from Dec. 9 and had not been charged to court.

“This is contrary to the provision of our constitution.

“We urge the court in the interest of justice and respect for the constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria to invoke your judicial power under Order 47 to release the applicant in custody,” he prayed.

Atabo undertook to produce Bodejo before the court in the event of prosecution by the state.

Although the AGF was not represented in court, the DSS counsel,  A.M. Danlami, told the court that they had not filed any counter affidavit in opposition to the applicant’s affidavit.

 Danlami, who said he was not opposed to the application for Bodejo’s release, urged the court to make an order that Bodejo should be produced to the respondents in the event a charge is preferred against him.(NAN)

An Abuja High Court has ordered the Department of State Services (DSS) to release the detained President of Miyetti Allah Kautal Hore, Alhaji Bello Bodejo, pending his trial.

Justice Mohammed Zubairu, ordered the Attorney-General of the Federation, Chief Lateef Fagbemi, and Director-General of the DSS, Mr Adeola Ajayi, to immediately admit him to adminstrative bail.

Justice Zubairu, a vacation judge, made the order after an ex-parte motion moved by Bodejo’s counsel, Reuben Atabo, SAN.

Although the motion ex-parte, marked: M/16976/2024, was moved by Atabo on Monday, the certified true copy of the order was made available to newsmen on Tuesday.

Daily Asset earlier reported that Bodejo, in the motion dated and filed on Dec.

19, had prayed the court to order his release from the detention of State Security Service (SSS), also known as DSS, pending the hearing and determination of the substantive application.

He also sought an order granting him leave to apply for the order of habeas corpus subjiciendum against the respondents.

Habeas corpus subjiciendum is a Latin phrase and a legal term used to describe a writ that is directed to someone who is detaining another person to inquire into the legality of the detention.

The Miyetti Allah president sued the AGF and the DG of SSS as 1st and 2nd respondents.

He sought “an interim order directing the respondents to, forthwith, produce the applicant from detention for him to be released, pending the hearing and determination of the substantive application for habeas corpus subjiciendum.”

Delivering the ruling, Justice Zubairu acknowledged the statutory powers of the respondents to prevent crime and criminality which include arrest, detention ond prosecution of offenders.

The judge, however, held that these powers are subject to constitutional limits/restrictions as provided under Section 35 of 1999 Constitution, which stipulates that a suspect can only be detained within 24 or 48 hours.

According to him, the 24 or 48 hours is sacrosanct

The judge said: “Courts must be ready and up and doing to ensure’ the constitutional provisions are adhered to and not violated.

“In the case at hand, having gone through the deposition of Hauwa Muhammad Bodejo in the supporting affidavit, I am moved to grant leave to the applicant to apply for an Order of Habeas Carpus.

“Consequently. leave is hereby granted to the applicant to so apply. i so hold.

“I further order the applicant shall file the substantive application within 24 hours from today for the purpose of determining the merit or other wise of the application.

“In a society like ours where we operate constitutional democracy, an individual ought not to be detained beyond the constitutionality guaranteed period without an order of the court.

“From the available facts, the applicant has not been arraigned before any court since 9th of December, 2024.

“On this ground, I order the respondents to produce the applicant before this court pending the hearing and determination of the application for Habeas Corpus or the respondent should grant the applicant an administrative bail.

The judge adjourned the matter until Dec. 30 for hearing. “(NAN)