The firearm charges leveled against the suspended governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, Godwin Emefiele, have been dismissed by a Federal High Court in Lagos at the request of the prosecutors.

Justice Nicholas Oweibo dismissed the charges because the prosecution holds the legal right to withdraw a charge against a defendant during any stage of the trial.

The judge, in his verdict, ruled that the request made by the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) to withdraw the case is supported by Section 108 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), which empowers the judge to revoke the charge, without any stipulated requirement for the application to be in written form.

During the hearing, the judge pondered the potential consequences for the defense if the court were to deny the application for the withdrawal. He described the prosecutors as not-law-abiding and having no respect for the court.

“The prosecution has shown that they are not law-abiding and have no respect for the court. The court cannot force them. What good will it be for the defendant who is in custody? What benefit will it be to keep the file in the court’s docket?

“I believe the proper thing is to allow them to withdraw the charge. They can abandon it, and the court will still have to strike it out for lack of diligent prosecution. The application to withdraw is at this moment granted,” the judge said.

Emefiele has been in the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS), on allegations bordering financial crimes, money laundering, and terrorism financing, for months. However, the court struck the charges off in … granting Emefiele bail. But the DSS filed fresh charges.

The secrete service accused Emefiele of possessing a single-barrel shotgun (JOJEFF MAGNUM 8371) without a license, an offense contrary to section 4 of the Firearms Act Cap F28 Laws of the Federation 2004 and punishable under Section 27 (1b) of the same Act.

The defendant was also accused of having in his possession 123 rounds of live ammunition (Cartridges) without a license, which is contrary to section 8 of the Firearms Act Cap F28 Laws of the Federation 2004 and punishable under Section 27 (1)(b)(il) of the same Act.

Having entered a plea of not guilty, the defendant was subsequently granted bail by the court, with a bail amount set at N20 million.

Among the stipulated conditions was an order for the suspended CBN Governor to be held in the custody of the Nigerian Correctional Services until the bail conditions are met.

However, the DSS defied the court, rearrested the defendant, and kept him in their custody after a scuffle with some Correctional Services officers.

The Federal Government’s decision to withdraw the case has been linked to the findings uncovered by the audit of the CBN, sanctioned by President Bola Tinubu.

The director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) at the Federal Ministry of Justice, Mohammed Abubakar told the court that the federal government had decided to withdraw the charges based on emerging facts and circumstances of the case, which requires closer investigation. The DPP stated that his oral application was brought in pursuant to sections 108 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act and 107 of the 1999 Constitution.

This move, which brings a fresh twist to the case, was challenged by the defense. Joseph Daudu (SAN), the defense counsel, contested the action, asserting that the court was not in a position to entertain the verbal plea due to the prosecution’s failure to adhere to the court’s directive regarding Emefiele’s bail.

Furthermore, he contended that no formal application was currently before the court, citing the prosecution’s lack of compliance with both legal statutes and court regulations.

“It must be in writing; I have never heard of an application to withdraw a case without the prosecution filing a nolle prosequi. So I will urge the court that in the interest of justice, its need to prevent this abuse of the legal processes.

“Every application they brought against any citizen of this country under section 174 is a nolle prosequi; the government cannot come before the court orally for that; it ought to be by “nolle prosequi”, at the point in term there is no application before the court,” he said.

He urged the court to reject the application and order the learned DPP to continue today’s business.

“We have an application before the court, which accused the AGF of disobeying the court’s order, ordering that the respondent/ defendant should be remanded in the custody of the Nigeria Correctional Service.

“The court also granted the defendant an order of substituted service to be published in three National newspapers, and after we obtained these orders, they brought an application of stay of execution of the bail, and we say unless they obey that order, the court cannot proceed,” Daudu added.

In response to the defense’s arguments, the DPP highlighted the distinction between nolle prosequi and charge withdrawal, referencing section 108 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law 2015.

The DPP clarified that whereas Section 107 specifies that the withdrawal application must be in written form, Section 108 does not prescribe a specific mode; it empowers the prosecutor to approach the judge for such an application. Our submission was in accordance with the provisions of Section 108.

With more revelations coming from the audit of the CBN, the Federal Government is believed to be preparing fresh charges bordering on financial crimes against Emefiele.

However, the court has been criticized for tolerating the DSS’ disregard for the rule of law for so long.

In my last article on resolutions under the Companies and Allied Matters Act, i explained that they are decisions of the board of a company’s directors via a poll . This article will be looking at the provisions of CAMA regarding:-

– The major provisions of the act on resolutions

– Written resolutions

– Resolutions requiring special notice

– The registration of certain resolutions

– The effect of resolutions passed at adjourned meetings.

What are the major provisions of the act regarding resolutions?

The act provides that :-

-A resolution is an ordinary resolution when it has been passed by a simple majority of votes cast by members of the company as, being entitled to do so, vote in person or by proxy at a general meeting.

-A resolution is a special resolution when it has been passed by at least three-fourths of the votes cast by members of the company as, vote in person or by proxy at a general meeting of which 21 days’ notice, specifying the intention to propose the resolution as a special resolution, has been duly given :-

Provided that, if it is so agreed by majority in number of the members having the right to attend and vote at any such meeting, being a majority together holding at least 95% in nominal value of the shares giving that right or, in the case of a company not having a share capital, together representing at least 95% of the total voting rights at that meeting of all the members, a resolution may be proposed and passed as a special resolution at a meeting of which less than 21 days’ notice has been given.

-At any meeting in which a special resolution is submitted to be passed, a declaration of the chairman that the resolution is carried is, unless a poll is demanded, conclusive evidence of the fact without proof of the number or proportion of the votes recorded in favour of or against the resolution.

-In computing the majority of a poll demanded on the question that a special resolution be passed, reference shall be had to the number of votes cast for and against the resolution.

What are the provisions of the act on written resolutions?

The act provides that all resolutions shall be passed at general meetings and are not effective unless so passed, but in the case of a private company a written resolution signed by all the members entitled to attend and vote are as valid and effective as if passed in a general meeting.

What does the act say regarding the circulation of members’ resolutions? 

-The act provides that subject to provisions of this section, it is the duty of a company, on the requisition in writing of such number of members as specified in this section and (unless the company otherwise resolves) at the expense of the company to –

(a) give to members of the company entitled to receive notice of the next annual general meeting notice of any resolution submitted by a member which may properly be moved and is intended to be moved at that meeting ; and

(b) circulate to members entitled to receive notice of general meeting any statement of not more than 1,000 words with respect to the matter referred to in any proposed resolution or the business to be dealt with at that meeting, and where the statement has more than 1,000 words to circulate a summary of it.

What does the act say about resolutions requiring special notice? 

The act provides that where by any provision contained in this Act, special notice is required of a resolution, the resolution is not effective unless notice of the intention to move it has been given to the company at least 28 days before the meeting at which it is to be moved, and the company shall give its members notice of any such resolution at the same time and in the same manner as it gives notice of the meeting, or if that is not practicable, shall give them notice thereof, either by advertisement in a newspaper having an appropriate circulation, or in any other mode allowed by the articles, at least 21 days before the meeting : Provided that if, after notice of the intention to move such a resolution has been given to the company, a meeting is called for a date 28 days or less after the notice has been given, the notice, though not given within the time required by this act, is deemed to have been properly given.

What does the act say about the registration & copies of certain resolutions?

The act provides that subject to the relevant section of this Act, a printed copy of every resolution or agreement to which this section applies shall, within 15 days after the passing or making of the resolution or agreement, be forwarded to the Corporate Affairs Commission(CAC).

What is the effect of resolutions passed at adjourned meetings?

Where a resolution is passed at an adjourned meeting of- 

(a) a company, 

(b) the holders of any class of shares in a company, or

(c) the directors of a company, the resolution shall, for all purposes be treated as having been passed on the date on which it was in fact passed, and not be deemed to have been passed on any earlier date.