By Adeyinka Adeniran
It was moment of legal fireworks in court on Wednesday as members of the Oodua Republic under the aegis of Yoruba Nation Agitators who are currently facing trial before an Oyo State High Court challenged the jurisdiction and powers of the state government to continue the case.
The case with suit number I/51c/2024 is the State Versus Adeyemo Peter & 26 others and held at the Fiat Court 3, Oyo State High Court, Ring Road, Ibadan.
The court is presided over by Justice K. B Olawoyin.
The defendants (1- 27) are facing trial on five count charge bothering on conspiracy, unlawful possession of firearms, unlawful assembly, treasonable felony and treason.
But 26 of the suspects are facing trial following the death of one of the suspects in prison custody as well as the granting of the application of the Prosecutor to amend the names of the suspects.
Corenews reports that Justice Olawoyin had on Wednesday, November 6th, 2024 adjourned the case till November 13th, 2024 for hearing of the notice of preliminary objections as filed by Yomi Ogunlola, one of the Counsel to the defendants.
At the proceedings on Wednesday, the Prosecution team was led by Mr S.O Adeoye (Director of Public Prosecution), Mrs O.R. Yusuf (Deputy Director of Public Prosecution) and Toluwani Martins-Jacob.
Mr. Yomi Ogunlola, Mr Omoloye, Mr O. A Adeleke, and other lawyers represented the defendants.
During proceeding, the state Prosecutor moved its application to call additional witnesses. The application was granted as it was not opposed by any of the defendants.
However, Mr Ogunlola moved a preliminary objection which was supported by other defence counsel challenging the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the matter.
He told the court that the major offences, treason and treasonable felony are Federal offences and the Prosecution needs the Fiat of the Attorney general of the Federation to prosecute the case.
He argued that the State High Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the matter, noting that only the Federal High Court has the jurisdiction to try treason and treasonable felony.
But, the DPP countered the objection, stating that the defendants were charged under Section 37 of the Criminal Code, CAP 38, Vol. II, laws of Oyo State, 2000.
He added that Section 4(7) of the 1999 Constitution empowers the State House of Assembly to make laws for order, and good government of the State, and that pursuant to this, the Oyo State House of Assembly enacted the Criminal Code, CAP 38 Vol II, laws of Oyo State, 2000.
He furthered that Section 211(1)(a) of the Constitution also empowers the State Attorney general to institute criminal proceedings in respect of any offence enacted by the State House of Assembly.
He argued further that the State attorney general pursuant to the provisions instituted the criminal charges against the defendants adding that the extant laws do not provide for the Fiat of the Attorney General of the Federation and thus the State Attorney General does not need the Fiat of the Attorney General of the Federation to prosecute a State offence.
Continuing, the DPP maintained that the offences committed by the defendants were targeted at the governor of Oyo State and the State House of Assembly and not at the President and the National Assembly and the offences were committed in Oyo State.
The DPP however submitted that by a community reading of Section 251(1) and 251(3) of the Constitution, the Constitution does not confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court to try treason and treasonable felony, and considering the circumstances of the case, the State High Court can also try the case.
As also argued by the Prosecution, the trial Court however ruled that by Section 397(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Oyo State, the preliminary objection shall be considered along with the substantive case and ruling on the objection to be delivered along with the final judgment.
The court then asked the Prosecution to call its witnesses, but the defence counsel objected, arguing that they need time to prepare for the case in the light of the new additional witnesses and documents filed by the Prosecution.
Ruling, Justice Olawoyin said, in the interest of fair hearing, the case is adjourned to the 11th, 12th and 13th of December, 2024.
