From Godwin Tsa, Abuja

The scheduled arraignment of former governor of Benue State, Dr Gabriel Suswam and two others by the Federal Government was, yesterday, stalled following his absence in court.

Consequently, Justice Gabriel Kolawole ordered the Department of State Service (DSS) to produce him in court for his arraignment, which has now been moved to May 11, 2017.

In a 32-count charge, the federal government accused Suswam and two others of diverting N9.7 billion, part of which was meant for police reform, subsidy reinvestment and empowerment programme.

The funds were allegedly diverted between 2012 and 2015, while Suswam was the governor of Benue State.

The allegations are contained in the 32 fraud and money laundering charges filed against Suswam and two others on Monday.

Others named as defendants in the charges filed before the Federal High Court in Abuja and marked FHC/ABJ/CR/48/2017, are a former Commissioner of Benue State, under Suswam’s administration, Mr. Omadachi Oklobia and the then Accountant of Benue State Government House Administration, Mrs. Janet Aluga. Although, both Omadachi Oklobia, Mrs. Aluga were in court, the arraignment could not take place in the absence of Suswam. Explaining the circumstances of Suswam’s absence in court, the prosecution counsel, Aminu Alilu told the court that the former governor refused service of the charge sheet.

“My Lord, the first defendant is on administrative bail, granted him by the police; when we went to serve him, it was discovered he (Suswam) is in the custody of DSS. 

“We made efforts to serve him (Suswam) in accordance with Section 2(3) of administration of Criminal Justice Administration, but could not succeed, as he refused service.

“Therefore, we served his counsel in compliance with Section 379(3) of ACJA,” the federal government lawyer said.

When the court enquired if Suswam was aware of the arraignment, Alilu said: “My Lord, he is aware because a letter to that effect was communicated to the DSS and they acknowledged it. 

“This morning, my Lord, the first defendant refused to come to court to take a plea. In view of this and by virtue of Section 87 of the ACJA, this court has power to make order for the process to be served on the defendant.”

Reacting, Adebayo Adedeji, who announced appearance under protest for Suswam told the court what actually transpired.

“My Lord, yesterday, at about 2pm, two officers of Nigerian Police Force walked into our office seeking to serve a charge filed on this instant suit. 

“Out of respect for the court, we received the process in protest; 

our objection is, being an originating process, it ought to be served, personally, on the first defendant.

“What the police did was presumptuous; because, that we are representing the defendant in another matter does not mean we are representing him in the instant case. He has the right to brief any other lawyer.

“Therefore my Lord, it cannot be correct to say that the first defendant refused to be served,” Adedeji posited.

He said it makes a mockery of ACJA if the first defendant was in custody of the prosecution and, yet, they filed a charge without producing him in court to take plea.

However, his claim that no affidavit was deposed to show that Suswam refused to be served was controverted as Alilu told the court that an affidavit, dated April 10, was deposed to that effect. 

On his part, David Iorhemba , counsel to the second and third defendants submitted that “in the absence of the first defendant, this matter cannot go on because it is a joint charge.”

But in his ruling, Justice Kolawole ordered the DSS to produce Suswam in court on May 11, for him to take plea. 

The court said until the first defendant is served, he cannot be produced in court.