SEC Bribery Scandal: Hembe, Azubuogu know fate on July 4

The ruling, which was scheduled for Monday, was adjourned to July 4 because Justice Abubakar Umar’s court did not sit.
The court’s Registrar, Mrs Rita Jacobs, who announced the adjournment, did not give reason the judge’s absence. She asked them tocome on Wednesday for the ruling.
Umar was supposed to rule on the preliminaryobjections filed by Hembe and Chris Azubuogu, the former deputy chairman of the committee, challenging their arraignment.The former Director-General of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Arunma Oteh, had alleged two suspects diverted of public funds amounting to 4,095 dollars
 The allegation led to their suspension from the committee.
They were to be arraigned by EFCC for converting 4,095 dollars about N600,000 givento them by SEC as travelling allowance for a conference in Dominican Republic in October 2011.
The EFCC said the offence was contrary to Section 308 of the Penal Code Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and attracted a jailterm of not less than seven years.
Umar had granted the EFCC permission to arraign Hembe and Azubuogu on May 10.
The suspects could not be arraigned on May 28 because the EFCC did not serve the proof ofevidence.
According to the suspects, the preliminary objection was not served on the anti graft agency.
Hembe's counsel, Jibrin Okutepa (SAN) in a preliminary objection, said that his client is challenging the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the charge.
Okutepa also said that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the suit, because the allegation was still being investigated by the House of Representatives Committee on Ethicsand Privileges.
He argued that the counter-affidavit contained “extraneous facts’ and that the EFCC being a respondent in the suit was contrary to the Evidence Act.
"The prosecution is nothing but persecution and a waste of Nigeria’s public money," he said. "By virtue of Section 89 of the 1999 Constitution, it is the National Assembly that has the jurisdiction to investigate this matter.”
Azubuogu’s counsel, Linda Ikpeazu, argued that since the report of the committee investigating the allegation had not been released, it would not serve the cause of justice to try her client.
"There is a case of inadequacy of documents and so, there is no case for my client to answer to.
According to her, he sought to return the money through the Clerk of the House.
"It was the Director-General of SEC, who askedhim to keep the money. Since there will be another conference. The absence of the Director-General of SEC in this case exposes the complicity in it,” she said.
Citing Section 167 (b) of the Evidence Act, Ikpeazu submitted: "the prosecution is bound to produce all criminal documents to the courtto warrant trial.’’
Ojeffu Ibe, the EFCC counsel, urged the court to dismiss the objections and asked the court to establish whether the estacode was used for the purpose it was approved.
Ibe said that the 1999 Constitution only gave the National Assembly powers to legislate and not powers to investigate.
He argued that the accused persons should first take their plea on the alleged offence of criminal misappropriation.