Yahaya Bello, the immediate-ex-gouverneur of Kogi State, requested the release of his international passport, but justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court in Abuja refuted the request, claiming that the medical report that was included with the application did not contain a signature.
Justice Nwite, however, determined that the application was not an abuse of the court process, contrary to the testimony of the prosecution team.
The defendant had requested that his travel documents be made available so that he could get medical care in the United Kingdom.  ,
The defendant’s attorney claimed the defendant had known about 15 years of hypertension from its counsel.
According to the attorney, Joseph Daudu, SAN, Exhibits A and B, which constituted an expert report on the applicant’s health status, were presented, claiming that sufficient evidence had been provided to allow the court to exercise its discretion in its favor.
The prosecution team claimed that the application was a violation of the court procedure, but the judge also made reference to that claim.  ,
Also read: FCT Court Declares Yahaya Bello’s Passport to Be In Possession.
The prosecution’s counsel noted that the reliefs sought were comparable and that the motion was technically ineffective because the defendant’s sureties were not informed while urging the court to dismiss the application.
The court determined that Yahaya Bello v. FRN, rather than Yahaya Bello v. FRN, was the subject of the case’s contention regarding suretyship.  ,
The judge ruled that the defendant should not be a part of the application and continued to support the counsel’s argument.
According to his assertion, “the counsel to the complainant did not reference any section of the law that requires sureties to be given notice or to be included in the motion on notice.”
The counsel’s claim that his argument was supported by no law, whether local or global, was supported.  ,
The complainant’s claim that the current application constitutes abuse of the court process is supported by the claim that the court process is being abused.
The applicant’s standing trial before this court and FCT court is undisputed, and it is undisputed that the applicant was arraigned on December 13, 2024, and on December 19, 2024, in this court and FCT High Court.
In its decision, the FCT High Court stated that the applicant must request court permission. This is not, therefore, evidence of court process abuse.
Additionally, Justice Nwite argued that “coordinated jurisdiction exists between this court and the FCT High Court.”
However, the court determined that Exhibit B, which was a doctor’s medical report, lacked any legal authority because it had not been signed by its author.  ,
An unsigned document is deemed useless and has no legal weight, according to the Court.  ,
The judge argued that Exhibit B lacks any probative value and cannot be relied upon by the Court.
The defendant hasn’t presented sufficient evidence to this court for the release of his passport. In consequence, Justice Nwite stated that this application is hereby rejected.
Source: Channels TV
Leave a Reply