The Federal High Court in Abuja has reaffirmed its arrest warrant against Yahaya Bello, the immediate past governor of Kogi State, dismissing his plea to halt the order.

Justice Emeka Nwite criticized Bello's absence from the court as a blatant disregard for judicial authority, stating that his noncompliance with the arraignment process in a criminal case renders him ineligible for any judicial leniency.

The court's decision, announced on Friday, May 10, 2024, reiterates the initial directive from April 17, compelling law enforcement to detain and present Bello to face a 19-count indictment related to alleged money laundering of N80 billion, as charged by the Federal Government.

Bello's defense, presented on April 23, 2024, contended that the arrest warrant was redundant since his attorney, Abdulwahab Mohammed, had accepted the charges on his behalf. However, this argument was rejected, along with Bello's challenge to the court's jurisdiction over the case.

Justice Nwite emphasized that Bello must surrender for arraignment to proceed with any legal applications, denouncing his evasion as an intentional obstruction of the trial. The judge underscored the constitutional obligation to comply with court orders, condemning Bello's defiance as contemptuous.

The court's stance aligns with the Supreme Court's disapproval of such dismissive attitudes towards judicial orders. Justice Nwite concluded that Bello's presence is a prerequisite for any further legal proceedings.

The judge said, “The law is settled that he who disobeyed an order of court and shown disrespect to the court cannot expect a favourable discretion of the court.

“The honourable thing the defendant would have done was to obey the order of court by making himself available.

“Section 287 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, mandates all persons and authority to give effect to orders of court.

“He has willfully disobeyed the order of this court. An order of court of competent jurisdiction, no matter how it was obtained, subsists until it is set aside.

“A party who refuse to obey an order of court after becoming aware of it, is in contempt of court.

“He is not entitled to be heard or granted a favourable discretion. The refusal of the defendant to make himself available is solely to truncate the arraignment and prevent the court from proceeding further in this case.

“Refusal of the defendant to make himself available in an attempt to truncate this court and make it practically impossible for the court to assume jurisdiction in this criminal trial.

“He ought to make himself available. He cannot sit in the comfort of his home to file applications before this court.

“The defendant has no atom or regard for the court. Clearly, the defendant is taking this court for granted.”

Justice Nwite held that Bello’s decision to treat the order of the court with levity, was previously condemned by the Supreme Court.

“In view of the forgoing analysis, I am of the view and I so hold, that no application can be moved or heard unless the defendant is present before the court to take his plea,” the trial judge held.