Onyedi Igwe, Port Harcourt
The Rivers State High Court sitting in Port Harcourt has dismissed an application filed by Saipem and six others challenging its jurisdiction to entertain a $130million contract fraud case filed against them by the state government.
The Wike’s administration filed the case in November 2021 before Justice Okogbule Gbasam of the Rivers State of High Court 25.
The defendants in the matter are Saipem SPA; Saipem Contracting Nigeria Limited; Walter Peviana; Kelechi Sinteh Chinakwe; Giandomenico Zingali; Vitto Testaguzza and Davide Anelli.
When the case came up for hearing on Wednesday, the court was confronted with an application for a preliminary objection by the lawyer to the first, second, third and sixth defendants, Odein Ajumogobia (SAN).
He challenged the jurisdiction of the court and accused it of abuse of processes.
The Presiding Judge, Justice Okogbule Gbasam, overruled on the preliminary objection filed by Odein Ajumogobia, SAN, the lawyer for the first, second, third and sixth defendants.
The judge said that the the court had jurisdiction as the reasons for the trial we’re not in contention.
Ajumogobia argued on Thursday that the prosecution failed to comply with Section 386 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Rivers State because it did not include statement of witnesses and proof of evidence.
It was also his contention that there was no police investigation conducted on the matter before his clients were arraigned in court.
But the State Counsel, Godwin Obla, (SAN), said he filed a counter affidavit of 45 paragraphs to the preliminary objection raised by the defense lawyer.
He disagreed with Ajumogobia’s position that the matter should be dismissed on the ground that the police did not conduct any form of investigation before his clients were arraigned in court.
Obla, that the Attorney-General of a state could continue with criminal prosecution if there are sufficient facts.
Delivering ruling on the jurisdiction of the court, Justice Gbasam held that the court had jurisdiction on the ground that the reason for the trial was not in contention.
The court which dismissed the application as incompetent and ruled that the defendants should face their trial adjourned the matter to the 22, 23 and 24 February, 2022 for hearing.
