The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, requested for a fresh amended charges on the allegation of Money laundering and diversion of public funds by former Governor Jonah David Jang and Honourable Justice Daniel Longji has reserved ruling for that to Friday 11th October, 2019.
The counsel to the 1st defendant ,Sen. Jonah David Jang ,Barr. Edward Pwajok ,SAN, confirmed the services to his client by the EFCC ,Rotimi Jacobs dated 30-09-2019 ,saying we have on behalf of the first defendant responded by filing a motion on notice dated 08-10-2019 and filed on the 09-10-2019 .
My Lord the application seeking to quash some of the amended charge ,we have that motion better on the presentation responded ,I submitted that we are bringing this application in time ahead of issue that might likely script in .
According to him ,the reasons for pushing this fresh application for paragraph 13,14,15,16 &17 ,18 are not in law violation of the federal government section 36 of the federal republic of Nigeria as amended .
He explained further that ,I only bring an applications which ready on the last adjourn date fresh charge was brought by the by EFCC
The suit EFCC vs Jang, Yusuf Gyang Pam
Appearances: EFCC counsel, Adebisi Adeniyi
Edward Pwajok- Ist defendant
Sunny Gabriel Odey -2nd defendant
EFCC, amend charges, dated 30th September and filed same date was confirm that all parties were served with amended charge, 30/9/2019, responded on the amended served, by filing a motion on notice, 8/10/ and filed on 9/9/19.
Apply to quash some changes within the amended charge served the motion on the Petitioners and 2nd defendant submits that without going to the merit of the application…
Objection to the sections of the charges are paragraph 18 are not within the law and are against section 36 of the Constitution
Petitioners said they have an addendum, attention of Lordships drawn to amended charge and Defendant confirmed.
We have been served with the amended charge and the matter was adjourned to deliberate on the amended charge.
The objection was on grounds of certain charges that are against the Constitution, pray to go through the application because it was just served yesterday; surprisingly the counsel to the 1st defendant application cannot be possible or be entertained under sections 236, of administrative of criminal justice, section 221 of plateau State criminal justice.
Justice Daniel Longji drew his attention to the Supreme Court ruling that once an application has been placed it must be heard or determined.
EFCC counsel said they are ready to respond orally despite been served yesterday.
Odey in his response said have been served this morning by 8:49am and have not gone through the application to determine the content. .. The judge overruled him.
Odey insisted that they are not ready for the application.
Pwajok, drew section 36(12) of Constitution and the inherent decision of the jurisdiction.
Order of court to 13,14,16,27 of the amended charge are defective and capable of embarrassing the 1st defendant with an affidavit of 8 paragraph and annexed filed written address of 3 issues, for
Paragraph 3:0 sum the issue together, citing section 36, and raised in that, count 13,14,15,16
Transfer by approving.
Challenge the counts brought i n by the EFCC said they are misleading and tantamount to prejudicing the court process Ibrahim against the state,2015, 11 .
Don’t file any counters affidavit to there application and it is presumed there application has come to stand and that they failed to file any written address and it means that the their own written address is a waver to the own written address..
Sec 236 as earlier state.
To allow the amended charge to scale through, it will amount to breech of the Constitution 36(12).
They are seeking to subject the accuse person to an unknown offence.
On an event of uncertainty of law, Constitution takes charge.