From: Godwin Tsa, Abuja
REPRIEVE came the way of Senate President, Bukola Saraki, yesterday, as the Supreme Court halted his trial at the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT} on charges of false assets declaration.
The apex court after hearing arguments canvassed by lawyers to both parties in the appeal brought by Saraki, directed the tribunal to, “tarry a while” on Saraki’s trial, pending the determination of the appeal.
The senate president’s counsel, Joseph Daudu (SAN), who led seven other senior advocates, had urged the apex court to stop the proceedings at the CCT pending the hearing of the substantive appeal.
Giving the order, Justice John Fabiyi gave seven days each to both parties to file and exchange briefs of their arguments on the substantive appeal.
Mindful of an undertaking by the prosecution counsel, Mr. Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), the apex court ordered that nothing should be done at the CCT level on the pending trial of the senate president.
Justice Fabiyi announced that a date for hearing of substantive appeal would be communicated to the parties as soon as it is fixed.
Before the decision of the apex court, Mr. Jacobs (SAN), who had earlier objected to granting a stay of proceedings, made an undertaking that the prosecution would not go ahead any longer with Saraki’s trial, if the Supreme Court would grant accelerated hearing in the pending substantive appeal.
In his argument against Saraki’s application for stay of further proceeding at the tribunal, Jacobs submitted that no court of law in the country has power to grant stay of proceedings in any crimi- nal matter in view of the introduction of the Ad- ministration of Criminal Justice Act 2015.
Jacobs assured the panel of five justices presided over by Justice Fabiyi, that nothing on the side of the prosecution would be done to prejudice the apex court on the matter pending before the court. To ensure speedy hearing of the substantive ap- peal, Jacobs told the court that he would file his brief of argument against the senate president’s substantive appeal on Monday.
He had argued that section 306 of the Act had removed the discretionary and inherent powers of any court, including the Supreme Court, to grant a stay of hearing in a criminal matter.
According to him, the purpose of enacting the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 [ACJA] by the legislature was to put to an end the usual delay suffered in the prosecution of criminal matters, which had led to inability of the authorities to curb corruption.