Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court, presided over by Justice Sylvanus Oriji, has reserved its ruling on the jurisdictional challenge raised by former Taraba State Governor, Darius Ishaku, in his ongoing trial for an alleged N27 billion fraud.
Ishaku, alongside former Permanent Secretary of the Taraba State Bureau for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs, Bello Yero, is facing a 15-count charge, including criminal breach of trust, conspiracy, and the conversion of public funds.
The charges stem from the alleged diversion of N27 billion in state funds.
The ruling on the preliminary objections was deferred after both parties presented their arguments regarding the court’s jurisdiction over the matter.
The defense lawyers, P.H. Ogbole (SAN) for Ishaku and Adeola Adedipe (SAN) for Yero, argued that the court lacked the constitutional and territorial jurisdiction to handle the case, as it pertains to the finances of Taraba State.
Ogbole contended that the power to investigate and prosecute matters related to the state’s finances rests exclusively with the Taraba State government, not the federal authorities or the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
He also pointed out that while some of the alleged offenses occurred in Abuja, the bulk of the case concerns Taraba State funds.
Adedipe similarly requested the court to dismiss the charge, asserting that Taraba State’s own Anti-Corruption Commission had jurisdiction over financial crimes involving the state’s funds.
He cited a Supreme Court ruling that limits the EFCC’s role where a state-established anti-corruption agency exists, which, in this case, he argued, was the Taraba State Commission.
However, the prosecution, led by Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), disagreed, urging the court to reject the defense’s objections and affirm its jurisdiction.
Jacobs emphasized that while the case involves the state’s finances, the EFCC has the authority to prosecute financial crimes that cross state lines or involve national interests.
Justice Oriji noted that the decision on the jurisdictional issue would be made when the judgment is delivered, in line with Section 396(3) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA).
The court adjourned the matter to January 21, 2025, for further hearing.
