In the money laundering prosecution case of Ali Bello and his co-accused, a recent controversy has erupted over an alleged discrepancy between the transcripts of court proceedings and what was circulated on the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) website and social media. At a recent hearing, defence counsels, Abubakar Aliyu, SAN, and Nureini Jimoh, SAN, briefed the judge on this and expressed concern over the publication of inaccurate transcripts of the proceedings.
The lawyers argued that the EFCC publications were contrary to statements made by a witness during cross-examination, which the anti-graft body had challenged. They said such publications could negatively influence public opinion and undermine fair justice. They also highlighted the risk that such biased publications could undermine public confidence in the justice system.
The defence stressed that the publications were contrary to Rule 39 of the Lawyers’ Code of Conduct, which prohibits such communication. They prayed the court to order the EFCC to immediately remove the offending publications from its website and issue a correction. Furthermore, they requested that the EFCC desist from publishing such information in the future.
In an effort to ensure the integrity of the judicial process, the defence lawyers also cited a Supreme Court decision warning against the inappropriate use of social media to influence public opinion. They stressed the importance of transparency and accuracy in publications related to sensitive court cases.
In response, the EFCC counsel said he needed to confirm the source of the offending publications and promised to revert to the court with the necessary information. The judge then ordered the EFCC counsel to verify the offending publications and report back at the next hearing.
This case raises important questions about the ethics of communications in court cases and highlights the importance of maintaining the integrity and transparency of the justice system. It is crucial that information disseminated to the public is accurate and impartial in order to preserve the trust of all stakeholders involved in the judicial process.