Court refuses to further vary Maina’s bail conditions

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday refused the request to further vary the bail conditions granted to the Chairman of the defunct Presidential Pension Reform Task Team (PPRTT), Abdulrasheed Maina, who has been in custody since November 2019.

Same court also rejected the request by the Economic and Financial Crime Commission (EFCC) for the revocation of the bail granted Maina.

These decisions are contained in two rulings delivered on Wednesday by Justice Okon Abang in two applications by the EFCC and Maina.

The first ruling was on a motion on notice filled by the EFCC seeking the revocation of the bail granted the defendant on the grounds that Maina, being tried on money laundering related charges, had allegedly perfected plans to escape from custody and assassinate the prosecuting lawyer and prosecution’s witnesses.

Justice Abang held that it was premature for the court to take a definite position on the issue because there is no evidence before the court that the allegation by the prosecution have been established by any security agency.

The judge said the request to revoke Maina’s bail cannot be granted at this stage because he believes that investigation of the allegations has not been concluded since Maina claims he has not been questioned by any security agency on the issue.

“No matter the gravity of the allegation against the fiyst defendant (Maina), it remains allegations, not yet proved.

“Should the court proceed to grant the prosecution’s request, it will amount to denying the defendant fair hearing when the investigation was still on and the defendant had not been heard on the issue.

“I have no option than to believe the firstst defendant that security agencies have not heard from him.

“There is no proof before the court that the defendant has threatened the life of the prosecution counsel and his witnesses,” the judge said.

He rejected the EFCC’s request for an order directing that additional security be provided around Maina, currently being held at the Kuje Correctional Centre, Abuja.

READ ALSO: NYSC donates 1,000 face masks to Niger

Justice Abang noted that, since the executive arm controls all the security agencies and the prosecuting agency, it can easily provide additional security if it feels such measure was necessary, without any order of the court.

“This application, at this stage, to the extent that investigation are yet to be concluded, is incompetent. It is not that it lacks merit.

“Whether it lacks merit or not cannot be determined at this stage because investigation is still on, the defendant having not been heard by security agents on the allegations,” the judge said and proceeded to strike out the application for being incompetent.

In the second ruling, Justice Abang rejected the request by Maina for a further review of the conditions attached to the bail granted him on November 26, 2019.

Maina said he has been unable to meet the conditions attached to the bail because of the stringent nature of the conditions, which include that he produced a serving senator as his guarantor who would bring him to court on adjourned dates.

That court had in a ruling on January 28, varied the bail conditions, but Maina said, in a another application for review, filed on February 10, that he could not meet the conditions because none of the serving senators agreed to stand surety for him.

In the ruling on Wednesday, Justice Abang faulted the latest application for review and held that it was unmeritorious.

Justice Abang held that the applicant was wrong to have, in his latest application, suggested some conditions to the court.

The judge said: “In an application for variation, it is not for the applicant to dictate the terms for the variation.

“It would have been sufficient for the applicant to provide sufficient reasons why the bail should be varied and why he could not meet the conditions earlier granted, not to dictate the conditions that suits him to the court.

“The condition, as dictated by the defendant, is pregnant with ulterior motives. What the first defendant has done is to ask the court to substitute his conditions with those earlier granted by the court.

“The first defendant failed to place materials before the court, with convincing reasons, to show that there exist exceptional circumstances to warrant the variation of the conditions of the bail earlier varied.

“The application filed by the first defendant lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed,” the judge said.