A Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed an application by the immediate past National Security Adviser, Col. Sambo Dasuki (rtd), to stop his trial.
This ruling is the third after two previous rulings of two other judges of the Federal Capital Territory High Court in Maitama, dismissing similar applications which were filed by Dasuki in respect of two sets of separate charges preferred against him by the state.
However, Justice Ademola in a separate ruling dismissed a separate application by the Federal Government seeking protection of its 11 listed witnesses whom it said were afraid of appearing to testify in the case for fear of reprisal.
He held that the prosecution failed to establish the grounds for granting such application asking for permission to shield the identities of their witnesses during trial.
The Federal Government is prosecuting Dasuki on four counts of money laundering and illegal possession of firearms.
Dasuki however filed the application dated February 11, 2016, asking the court to prohibit the Federal Government from prosecuting him and discharge him of the alleged crimes on the basis that the Federal Government had disobeyed the orders granting him bail and permitting him to embark on a medical trip abroad.
He claimed that his continued detention in the custody of the Department of State Service since December 29, 2015, amounted to the Federal Government being in contempt of the court order granting him bail on September 1, 2015 and another granting him permission on November 3, 2015 to travel abroad for medical treatment.
The judge in dismissing the application held that the defence lawyers, Messrs Joseph Daudu and Ahmed Raji, had failed to follow the laid down procedure through which the court would be able to make findings on whether the prosecution was in contempt of the court orders.
The judge, who described Dasuki’s application as strange, also held that no court in Nigeria could either compel the Federal Government to prosecute a suspect or prohibit it from prosecuting an accused person.
He also held that it was too early in the day to make an order discharging the accused when his trial had yet to commence.