Again, the Federal Government, yesterday, failed to produce former National Security Adviser (NSA), Colonel Sambo Dasuki (rtd) before an Abuja High Court where he is standing trial over alleged diversion of N6 billion meant for the purchase of arms.
The counsel informed the court that there was no indication that the former NSA would be brought to court for the trial, even though the witnesses are in court and that also Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) who was supposed to be the lead prosecution counsel was at the Court of Appeal for a different matter.
Atolagbe appealed that the matter be stood down pending the arrival of Jacobs in court to come and shed more light on the absence of Dasuki. However, counsel to one of the defendants, Salisu Shuaib, a former Director of Finance in the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA), Akin Olujimi (SAN) said that the coming into court of Jacobs would be inconsequential in the absence of the first defendant (Dasuki). Olujimi told the court that the prosecution had failed to produce the defendant in court and ought to admit that and asked for adjournment.
He argued that it is settled in law that trial cannot go ahead in the absence of the defendant and prayed the court to grant adjournment to the prosecution to enable them take steps to produce Dasuki in court on the adjourned date. Olujimi also asked the court to issue a stern warning to the prosecution to be serious in the trial and to ensure that Dasuki is produced in court at all stages of the trial as demanded by law.
In his own submission, counsel to Aminu Baba- Kusa, a former Executive Director at the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), Solomon Umor (SAN) submitted that “ordinarily, the prosecution ought to apply for a bench warrant against Dasuki for failure to appear in court for trial, but noted that in the instant case, the prosecution would not do so because they are the one responsible for the absence of Dasuki because of his unwarranted detention.
In his ruling, Justice Yusuf said that that it was the responsibility of the prosecution to produce the defendant in court as required by law, but regretted that the prosecution has unfortunately abdicated this responsibility today as far as this case is concerned. The court, however, held that the conduct of the prosecution had been good in the past and consequently adjourned till May 23.