ORMER Speaker Dimeji Bankole and his erstwhile deputy, Alhaji Usman Bayero Nafada, were yesterday acquitted of complicity in the N38 billion loan taken from banks by the House of Representatives during their tenure.
Justice Suleiman Belgore of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court freed the duo.
He discharged and acquitted them of the 17-count charge of criminal breach of trust and dishonest use of House of Representatives bank account to obtain loan slammed against them by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
But counsel to the EFCC, Mr. Festus Keyamo hinted that the decision may be challenged.
In his ruling that lasted about three hours, Justice Belgore held that there was no contravention of known financial regulations by the duo to warrant them facing trial.
Besides, he said Bankole and Nafada cannot be held liable, in criminal law, for the action that was taken by the general House.
Although the court held that it is "morally wrong, morally indefensible and morally insensitive" for the Bankole/Nafada-led House to have increased their quarterly "running costs" from N27 million to N42 million each, the Judge held that it did not amount to a criminal offence but a moral offence.
Dismissing Keyamo’s argument, Justice Belgore held that "the House of Representatives does not need approval from the President to increase its running cost and also source for loans from a bank, as it is an independent arm of government, which is not in the category of Ministries, Departments and Agencies, MDAs."
Keyamo had argued that the leadership of the House erred by not seeking presidential approval to source for loans to pay its members’ enhanced running cost.
But Justice Belgore held: "The two accused persons did not move any money with the intention of dishonestly taking it. How can borrowed money now somersault to a property that was dishonestly taken for personal use?"
He disagreed with the anti-graft agency’s position that the accused persons breached the extant provisions of the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) by not seeking its approval.
The court reasoned that the legislature, being a different arm of government, the commission cannot fix the "running costs" for members of the House of Representatives. They are at liberty to increase their "running costs" to whatever amount they so collectively wish.
He asked: "Is the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission the owner of the money as to make their consents relevant?
"How can it be relevant that money approved by members’ need to get the approval of RMAFC before it is disbursed?'
"There is, therefore, no evidence that the accused persons moved the money or gave such orders for the movement of the money, as no evidence of taking of any property dishonestly has been established.
"The accused persons were not among the beneficiaries of the loans. If anything, their running costs were drastically reduced."
The court also clarified that the functions of the accused persons, as speaker and deputy speaker, were "purely legislative in nature" and did not include any dealings with the funds of the House.
It noted that it was the Clerk, not Bankole and Nafada, who should be charged for securing and disbursement of the loans.
"It is, therefore, my strong view that if accused persons had done anything on the funds of the House."
"There was no contravention of any financial regulations by the two accused persons and no prima facie case has been established against them. I find considerable merit in this ‘no case submission’ by the defence."
Reacting to the judgement, Keyamo, in a statement, said: "It is wrong for a judge to allow a public officer to take money from the public till under any guise without reference to RMAFC. Our respectful view is that other allowances as stated in the Constitution encompasses running costs as monies collected by public officers to offset expenses other than wages. The difference the judge tried to create is merely splitting of hairs.
"Since the court had arrived at a conclusion that Bankole usurped the powers of the Clerk of the House of Representatives, should he not be held accountable for misusing that power he usurped? We think he should."
