The Appeal Court had ruled that the late military head of state, General Sanni Abacha's immunity could not be extended to his son.
The Supreme Court therefore ordered the embattled son of the late General to go and face his trial at
the Abuja High Court.
Mohammed is facing a 123-count charge bordering on possession of properties stolen from the Federal Government by his late father.
Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, who delivered the lead judgement, held that Mohammed should stand trial for holding on to the properties allegedly stolen by his father as the court held that the immunity granted his father did not extend beyond his tenure of office and that even if the late head of state was alive, he (Abacha) could be prosecuted for a criminal offence not to talk of his son who was never a state official .
"The appellant's father is not the one on trial, his immunity cannot extend beyond his stay in office.
"The late Abacha is not on trial, therefore, the appellant should go and face his trial, he cannot enjoy the immunity of the father.
"The April 18, 2005 judgement of the Court of Appeal is hereby upheld.
"The appeal is hereby dismissed as unmeritorious and vexatious," Ariwoola ruled.
According to the court, the immunity of the father could not work for the son and that even the immunity of the father expired at his exit from office as provided by Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution.
Justice Ariwoola held that Mohammed should return to the trial court to take his plea and possibly plead a no- case submission if he so wished.
According to Ariwoola, the appellant was charged with offences against the state, saying forfeiture order was just a punishment which could not earn him indemnity against trial.
The Abuja High Court had rejected Mohammed's application to quash the charges following which he appealed to the Court of Appeal.
The Appeal Court rejected his appeal and upheld the decision of the High Court but Mohammed took his case to the Supreme Court.
He had challenged the Abuja High Court's powers to exercise judicial powers over him by putting him on trial in view of the provisions of Forfeiture of Asset Decree No.
53 of 1999, an existing law and an Act of the National Assembly which, according to him, had resolved the issue of criminal liability arising out of the 123 counts criminal charge brought against him by the Federal Government.
He also argued that the immunity enjoyed by his father while in office extended to him.
He also argued, through his lawyer, Chief Joseph Daudu (SAN) that that having forfeited some of the family's properties confiscated by the government, he was exempted from prosecution in line with the provisions of Decree number 53 of 1999.
The Federal Government had slammed a 123- count charge bordering on conspiracy, receiving of stolen funds , among others, on Mohammed before an Abuja High Court.
Before taking his plea at the trial court, Mohammed approached the Court of Appeal contesting the legality of his trial on the grounds that he had complied with the provisions of Forfeiture of Assets (Certain Persons) Decree No.
53 of 1999.
He had told the court that in so far as he complied with the provisions of the said decree, no criminal or civil suit could be instituted against him.
But the Court of Appeal resolved the appeal in favour of the Federal Government, saying there was nothing in the provision of Decree No.
53 of 1999 which inhibited the Abuja High Court from exercising its judicial power to try Abacha.
Justice Amina Augie, who delivered the lead judgment held that the said decree did not resolve any criminal issues sought to be determined in the Abuja High Court, adding that the said Decree No.
53 did not confer any immunity on Mohammed.
No comments:
Post a Comment