The Court of
Appeal, Abuja Division, on Friday ordered the reduction of the jail term issued
against a former Plateau State governor, Joshua Dariye, after deciding that the
term did not comply with the provision of the Administration of Criminal
Justice Act, (ACJA).
Mr Dariye is
accused of diverting N1.62 billion ecological funds while he served as governor
of his state.
He
approached the appeal court, after a High Court of the Federal Capital
Territory, presided by Justice Adebukola Banjoko, sentenced him to various
terms with the longest period of 14 years, all expected to run concurrently.
In the
appeal, Mr Dariye asked the court to determine 14 main issues.
The former
governor argued that a copy of his statement, cited to by the prosecution as
evidence, was given under duress and should not have been regarded by the
court.
Mr Dariye
also submitted that the judgement of the court was inconsistent because Mrs
Banjoko had among other things, found him guilty of count 23, but failed to
convict him, while the same court convicted the former governor for count 12,
despite the fact that he was not found guilty of the said count.
Mr Dariye
also argued that the lower court was wrong in describing him as a ‘public
servant’ and questioned what he described as the failure of the court to
differentiate between the elements contained in an allegation of criminal
breach of trust, with that of an alleged misappropriation of funds which
rendered its judgement defective.
The former
governor also contended that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations
against him at the lower court, and consequently faulted the decision of the
court in many of the counts, where the convicted governor was found guilty.
In a ruling
delivered by a judge, Stephen Ada, the appeal court said Mr Dariye’s complaint
about the admissibility of his statement was null and void, since the complaint
was not made at the start of his trial, from the records of the lower court.
“The law is
trite that when an accused fails to contest the voluntariness of a statement,
it cannot raise the objection at a later stage,” Mr Ada ruled.
The court
also assessed the complaints made by the former governor against the decision
of the lower court on counts 23 which bordered on the allegation that Mr Dariye
withdrew part of the diverted funds, worth N250 million in July 2001 to
purchase a London-based asset in September of that year.
According to
the appeal court, the prosecution failed to prove that the money removed from
the Plateau State treasury in July, 2001 was the same money used for the
purchase of the London asset.
“The fact
that the money was taken in July, is not sufficient to prove that the money was
the same as that used to purchase the house in September,” Mr Ada said.
The judge
added that the lower court “failed woefully” in reaching its conclusion about
the allegation of diversion, as contained in count 23. The court also overruled
the conviction of Mr Dariye on count 12 of the charge against him.
The appeal
court ruled that although the decision of the prosecution to multiply the
charges against the defendant is not allowed in law, the allegations against Mr
Dariye were ”clearly brought and it’s particulars accurately placed before the
lower court”.
“It is my
view that under sections 194, 195, 196 and 197 of the ACJA, the allegations
were properly laid before the court and they have sufficient particulars,” he
said.
The court
dismissed the submission of Mr Dariye that he was not a public servant, saying
the question of who he was did not arise.
According to
the judge, section 318 (1) of the Constitution clearly explains the public
nature of Mr Dariye’s office and ”he cannot begin to assume himself as
different from that person”.
The court,
however, added that despite the critical reasoning of the lower court to
convict Mr Dariye, the former governor should not have been given a maximum ”of
the entire period included in the charge against him”, since the record before
the lower court has shown that Mr Dariye was a first-time offender.
“The
appellant is a first offender and should not have been sentenced to maximum
punishment for the offence, for which was charged. The appellant was sentenced
to maximum terms as contained in the laws. The sentences are therefore
excessive and cannot be sustained,” the judge said.
The court
upheld the judgement of the court in counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 17,
21, 22 bordering on criminal breach of trust, but ruled that the jail terms for
the court judgements will be reduced to 10 years.
The court
also reduced the jail term for the other counts, dealing with misappropriation
to one year and added that the jail terms were to run concurrently.
Comments