he Federal Capital Territory High Court sitting in Gwarimpa, Abuja, has fixed Thursday, December 18, for its ruling on the bail application filed by former Minister of Labour and Employment, Chris Ngige, who is standing trial over an eight-count charge of alleged contract fraud involving the sum of ₦2.2 billion.
The trial judge, Justice Maryam Hassan, announced the date after hearing detailed arguments from both the prosecution and the defence on the application. Counsel to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, Sylvanus Tahir, SAN, and lead defence counsel, Patrick Ikwueto, SAN, presented opposing submissions on whether the former minister should be granted bail pending trial.
When the matter came up for hearing, the prosecution recalled that the case had earlier been adjourned to allow it respond adequately to the bail application, which was served on the EFCC shortly before the previous court date. The prosecution informed the court that it had since filed a counter-affidavit and written address opposing the application.
Arguing in support of the application, defence counsel urged the court to grant bail, stressing that the defendant does not pose a flight risk and has no intention of evading trial. He explained that the application, filed earlier in the month, was primarily grounded on medical reasons, noting that the defendant required urgent and continuous medical attention.
The defence rejected claims by the prosecution that the former minister had breached the conditions of an earlier administrative bail granted to him. Counsel explained that while the prosecution alleged that the defendant failed to return his international passport after a medical trip abroad, documentary evidence showed that the passport was lost while he was in London.
According to the defence, reports of the lost passport were made to relevant authorities, including officials in the United Kingdom, the Nigerian High Commission in London and authorities in Abuja. Counsel argued that the prosecution failed to show that it investigated the claim of loss and found it to be untrue, adding that documentary evidence carries greater weight than assertions made in affidavits.
He further argued that it was contradictory for the prosecution to claim that the defendant could flee the country when he no longer had an international passport or any valid travel document. He noted that there was no evidence before the court showing that the defendant had obtained a replacement passport or had the means to leave the country.
The defence also pointed out that the defendant voluntarily returned to Nigeria after his overseas medical trip, an action which, according to counsel, clearly demonstrated that he was not a flight risk. He explained that the defendant returned using an emergency travel certificate issued by the Nigerian High Commission in London, a document that can only be used once and is not valid for outbound travel.
Counsel further submitted that the former minister has no prior criminal record and is unlikely to commit the alleged offences again, especially as he no longer holds public office. He urged the court to consider the defendant’s long record of public service and the absence of any previous criminal conviction.
Emphasising the health concerns of the defendant, the defence pleaded with the court to take into account his age and deteriorating medical condition, particularly issues affecting his eyesight. Counsel told the court that the defendant required regular medical care and that his health challenges could adversely affect his ability to stand trial if not properly managed.
He urged the court to exercise its discretion in favour of granting bail, noting that the offences charged are not capital offences and are bailable under the law. He added that the court could impose any conditions it deemed necessary to ensure the defendant’s attendance at trial.
Opposing the application, the prosecution urged the court to refuse bail, arguing that the defendant had already violated the terms of the administrative bail earlier granted to him by the EFCC. The prosecution maintained that the defendant undertook to return his passport by a specific date but failed to do so and did not voluntarily present himself to the EFCC upon his return to Nigeria.
The prosecution also questioned the credibility of the claim that the passport was lost abroad, arguing that the defendant ought to have sworn an affidavit of loss in the country where the loss allegedly occurred rather than doing so after returning to Nigeria. It submitted that the defendant’s conduct amounted to a gross breach of bail conditions and undermined the integrity of the criminal justice process.
Relying on provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, the prosecution argued that bail may be refused where a defendant’s conduct threatens the objectives of justice or shows a likelihood of non-compliance with court directives. It urged the court to reject the bail application and instead order an accelerated hearing of the case.
After listening to submissions from both parties, Justice Hassan adjourned the matter to December 18 for ruling on the bail application.
Post comments (0)