The Supreme Court has adjourned indefinitely hearing in separate appeals filed by the Senate President, Bukola Saraki and the Federal Government, which are respectively challenging the decision of the Court of Appeal on Saraki’s trial.
The apex court had to adjourn the two appeals sine die to enable Saraki and the Federal Government file and exchange processes relating to the matters within the time allowed by law.
Counsel to the Federal Government, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), informed the court yesterday when the matter came up that the Senate President had just served him with his response to the cross-appeal of the government, and that he needed time to study the reply, file his own process and serve same on Saraki as required by law.
He, therefore, asked for adjournment, which was not opposed by counsel to Saraki, Mr. Kanu Agabi (SAN).
Justice Mohammed Musa Dattijo, who presided over the case with four other justices of the court, however stated that the court would not give definite date for hearing until all processes had been filed.
He added that the court registrar would communicate hearing date to parties involved as soon as their processes are confirmed, filed and exchanged.
Saraki and the government are contesting the decision of the Court of Appeal, Abuja, which had nullified 15 out of the 18 charges filed against Saraki by the government for being baseless and frivolous, but had asked him to open defence on the remaining three charges.
But while Saraki is praying the Supreme Court to void the entire 18 charges, the Federal Government in its cross-appeal is praying the apex court to uphold the entire charges against the Senate President.
The Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) where Saraki was arraigned in 2015 by government on 18-count charge of false assets declaration had discharged and acquitted him on the ground that the charges brought against him were based on hearsay evidence that could not be relied upon to convict the defendant.
But the Federal Government not satisfied with the decision of the CCT, approached the Court of Appeal to challenge the judgment.
