Alleged Cocaine Deal: Kyari, Others Ask Court to Quash Trial
Alex Enumah in Abuja
The suspended Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), Abba Kyari and other members of the Inspector General of Police’s Intelligent Response Team, (IGP-IRT) have filed a fresh motion seeking to quash their ongoing trial before the Federal High Court.
The defendants predicated their request on the grounds that their arraignment violated constitutional provisions on the prosecution of serving police officers.
The National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) is currently prosecuting Kyari and four officers of the IGP-IRT over alleged complicity in 21 kg of seized cocaine.
While the police officers which included: Sunday Ubua, Bawa James, Simon Agirigba and John Nuhu – had pleaded not guilty to the charge the alleged traffickers Chibunna Umeibe and Emeka Ezenwanne on their part pleaded guilty and have since been convicted and sentenced by Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court.
However, Kyari and his codefendants have initiated a suit challenging their continued trial on the grounds that the police disciplinary committee hearing the matter had not completed the hearing before they were brought to court.
The defendants claimed that as serving police officers that cannot be arraigned without first being tried internally and can then be handed over for prosecution if found guilty.
The defendants while denying involving in any drug deal accused the NDLEA and her officers at the Enugu Airport of conniving with International and Domestic Drug Cartels and doing a hatchet man’s job.
The motion filed on their behalf by Dr. Ikpeazu Ikpeazu, argued that the alleged offences, which the defendants were being prosecuted, “were allegedly committed in the course of Police investigation and constitutionally should be subjected to disciplinary measures by the Police Service Commission who have the powers to investigate these offences allegedly committed in the course of the Applicants’ duties.”
He further explained that, “The five-count charge is similar or related to allegations previously made by the Applicants’ Police Service Commission in respect of disciplinary action against Police officers, and it was for the same subject matter and for the same period. This charge against the Applicants’ affected the completion of this constitutional procedure.
“Internal disciplinary action of the Police Service Commission provided by the Constitution against the Applicants is a condition precedent before the Applicants can be charged by any other security agent/agency. The disciplinary action by the Police Service Commission commenced earnestly and timely.
“The Applicants had previously answered a query issued to them by the Police authority before the charge herein was filed against the Applicants”, the senior lawyer submitted.
The defendants further argued that, the failure of the NDLEA to await the disciplinary action against the Applicants renders the charge incompetent and deprives this court of jurisdiction to entertain this charge.
