The Federal Government’s attempt to retry former Abia Governor and Senator representing Abia North, Orji Uzor Kalu, in the N7.6 billion fraud case presented against him has been denied by the Court of Appeal in Abuja.
On December 5, 2019, Justice Mohammed Idris of the Federal High Court condemned the former governor to twelve years in prison for allegedly misusing public monies while in office.
Ude Udeogu, Director of Finance and Accounts at the Abia State Government House during Kanu’s term, was also sentenced to ten years in prison for the act.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission charged Kalu, Udeogu, and Kanu’s company, Slok Nigeria Limited, with conspiracy and the misappropriation of N7.65 billion from the state’s funds.
Kalu and Udeogu, dissatisfied with the Federal High Court’s decision, filed an appeal to the Supreme Court challenging their sentencing.
The top court’s decision, issued by Justice Ejembi Eko, declared the appellants’ conviction null and void on the grounds that Idris was already a Justice of the Court of Appeal at the time the judgement was rendered.
Justice Eko further ruled that a Justice of the Court of Appeal cannot serve as a judge of the Federal High Court.
However, the Supreme Court instructed the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court to reassign the case for a new trial.
However, Kalu returned to the Federal High Court and secured an order preventing the EFCC from retrying him.
Justice Inyang Edem Ekwo, who issued the restriction order against the EFCC, ruled that Kalu was not specifically indicated in the Supreme Court’s judgement.
The apex government was dissatisfied and filed an appeal against the high court verdict.
On Wednesday, Justice Joseph Oyewole read the lead judgement, dismissing the appeal based on the government’s failure to present relevant high court records.
Justice Oyewole also ruled that the government’s record was not dependable enough to approve the request.
He remarked, “The record of an appeal brought by the federal government was incompetent and unreliable for any court to use to grant the request of the government.”
He also stated that the record of appeal was not compiled, signed, and certified by any person known to law.
“The name of the person who compiled signed, and certified the record was not reflected as required by law,” he added.