A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) defending the chairman of the defunct Pension Reform Task Team (PRTT), Abdulrasheed Maina over alleged fraud of N2billion Sani Katu has sought to withdraw from defending the accused.
Penpushing reports that Katu, a leading defence counsel decision to withdraw from the case, was learnt to be an offshoot of the disagreement on the defence strategy between him and another lawyer,
The source said the lawyer Anayo Adibe, had earlier being been engaged by the accused person before Katu was brought in to lead the defence team in February, but Katu at the proceedings on Wednesday distanced himself from the series of subpoena applied for by Maina to be issued on the Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, and others.
Penpushing further reports that, Kani’s resolve to withdraw from the N2 billion money laundering case comes less than two months after he was engaged by the accused to lead his defence.
The Federal High Court in Abuja hearing the case, however, rejected a request by Katu, while the application was opposed by the counsel prosecuting the defendant for the Economic and Financial Commission(EFCC),Farouk Abdullah, who argued that the defence lawyer failed to meet the conditions to withdraw from the case.
Penpushing also reports that, the trial judge, Okon Abang, upheld the anti-graft objection and dismissed Katu’s application on the grounds that he failed to give three days notice to the court to quit as provided in section 349(8) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.
“From the record of the court, no such application has been filed. It is not a sentimental issue.It is an issue of law which cannot be overlooked, notwithstanding the enviable position of the learned senior counsel at the bar. If the law expects a notice to be filed in section 349(8) of ACJA, it must be done. The non-compliance goes to the root and affects the foundation of the application to withdraw”, he declared
Penpushing also reports that, judge pointed out that a lawyer, by virtue of section 349(7) of ACJA, was bound to appear in a case till judgment, but could be allowed to quit for special reasons communicated to the court via a three-day notice.
“The learned counsel, Sani Katu, has not offered any reason to withdraw from the matter. There is no application filed by him to withdraw from this case. This application to withdraw is to compound the matter before the court. The application is not made in good faith. The application lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed,” the judge added.
FOOTNOTE: You want to share story with us? You want to advertise with us? You need publicity for product, or service, or event? Contact us on WhatsApp +2348073463653 or email penpushing@yahoo.com
