The case of Tigran Gambaryan, a senior executive of Binance Holdings Limited, has recently hit the headlines in Abuja. On Friday, an unusual scene unfolded at the Federal Court in Abuja when the accused was strangely absent for his trial. This absence sparked shock and perplexity among the stakeholders present.
Justice Emeka Nwite, after dismissing Gambaryan’s second bail application, had set this date for the continuation of the trial on money laundering charges brought by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) against Binance Ltd and its representative in the country, Gambaryan.
When the case was called that day, all the lawyers for the parties were present except the 2nd accused, Gambaryan. Asked about his client’s absence, Gambaryan’s lawyer, Mark Mordi, said he did not know where his client was. The same observation was made by EFCC counsel, Ekele Iheanacho, who requested an adjournment to obtain information from the National Prison Service.
The concern over Gambaryan’s disappearance was shared by Binance counsel, Tonye Krukrubo, who stressed the EFCC’s responsibility in handling the situation. The Correctional Service officer present said Gambaryan was in his custody and assured that the defendant was ill, thus explaining his absence.
Faced with the worrying situation, Gambaryan’s counsel requested an adjournment to ensure his client receives the necessary medical attention. Despite the presence of the EFCC witness, the parties agreed on the need to clarify the defendant’s health status before continuing with the trial.
This case raises questions about transparency and communication between the actors involved. The importance of the accused’s health highlights the need for judicious management of legal cases, ensuring both the rights of the accused and the fairness of the judicial process.
The court decided to postpone the hearing to gather information on Gambaryan’s health status, emphasizing the importance of respecting procedures and protecting fundamental rights, even in a judicial context. This case highlights the importance of compassion and humanity within the judicial system, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach between justice and compassion.