Former Taraba State Governor, Darius Ishaku, and a former Permanent Secretary in the Ministry for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs in the state, Bello Yero, will have to wait until the end of their trial to know the outcome of the preliminary objection they filed, challenging the jurisdiction of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court, Abuja. The court is presided over by Justice S.C. Oriji.

This was the decision of the court on Wednesday, November 13, 2024, when the matter came up for hearing.

The two former Taraba State officials are being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on a 15-count charge, including criminal breach of trust, conspiracy, and conversion of public funds in the state to the tune of N27 billion.

In their preliminary objection, both defendants asked the court to dismiss the trial, arguing that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter since their alleged offenses did not occur in Abuja, where the court is sitting.

Prosecution counsel, Rotimi Jacobs, SAN, responded by asserting that the court does have jurisdiction in the matter. He referred to the prosecution's counter-affidavit and urged the court to dismiss the defense’s application.

“We filed a counter-affidavit to assist the court, sworn to by Agumowo Chidera. We rely on the affidavit and urge your lordship to dismiss the application of the first and second defendants. We also filed a written address, which we humbly adopt as our counter-argument. The issue of jurisdiction raised by the defendants could be ruled on later to save the court's time. The court has substantive jurisdiction based on the law that establishes the charge, and your lordship has jurisdiction to hear the case. Territorial jurisdiction is what they are contesting. We urge your lordship to dismiss their application,” he stated.

In his ruling, Justice Oriji cited Section 396(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, and adjourned ruling on the objection until the end of the trial. He noted that Section 396(2) provides that “After the plea has been taken, the defendant may raise any objection to the validity of the charge or the information at any time before judgment, provided that such objection shall only be considered along with substantive input and ruling thereof made at the time of delivery of judgment."

“In accordance with this provision, I order that the ruling on the preliminary objections of the defendants shall be delivered at the time of judgment at the end of the trial,” Justice Oriji stated.

He then adjourned the matter until January 21, 28, and 29 for continuation of the trial.