On Friday, the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court struck out an application filed by Edison Ehie, the chief of staff to Governor Siminalayi Fubara of Rivers, seeking an order to strike out the charge against him and others for want of jurisdiction.

Justice Bolaji Olajuwon, in a ruling, held that Mr Ehie, having not been joined as a defendant in the charge, lacked the legal right to make such a plea.

The judge also struck out Mr Ehie’s prayer for an order, striking out his name anywhere it might appear in the charge marked FHC/ABJ/CR/25/2024.

The judge agreed with the police lawyer, Simon Lough, that having not been joined as a defendant in the charge, Mr Ehie’s application could not be heard.

Mr Ehie, recently appointed chief of staff after he resigned as member and factional speaker of the assembly, was alleged to be among the suspects charged by the inspector general of police for committing the offence.

Five suspected arsonists of the Rivers assembly complex were, on January 25, arraigned before the judge on a seven-count charge bordering on alleged terrorism, among others.

Mr Ehie, whose name was mentioned, was alleged to be at large with other suspects.

The five defendants arraigned were Chime Eguma Ezebalike, Lukman Oladele, Kenneth Goodluck Kpasa, Osiga Donald and Ochueja Thankgod.

They, however, pleaded not guilty to the seven-count charge and were ordered to remain in Kuje Prison custody until Friday, when the judge would determine their respective bail applications.

Upon resumed hearing Friday, Mr Ehie’s lawyer, Oluwole Aladedoye, informed the court that he had filed an application dated and filed on January 24, seeking two orders.

He said the parties had been served accordingly.

Mr Aladedoye said the application was brought pursuant to Sections 6 and 36 of 1999 Constitution.

He argued that it was incorrect that Mr Ehie, whose name featured in the counts preferred by the inspector general of the police, had no right to make this application.

“It would have been different if the name is not there at all,” he added.

The lawyer equally argued that in their affidavit, it was clearly stated that the police did not invite his client.

He urged the court to grant their prayers.

But police counsel, Mr Lough, disagreed with him.

Mr Lough said though he was served with Mr Ehie’s application, the motion was not ripe for hearing.

According to him, the application is incompetent in view of section 396(2) of Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.

He said since Mr Ehie was challenging the court’s jurisdiction, the law provision says until an applicant is joined and takes his plea before he can have the right to file such a motion.

“His (Mr Ehie’s) name is not in the charge and has not applied to be joined. So his application is incompetent,” he said, praying the court to strike it out.

The judge, who agreed with Mr Lough, asked, “Who is this person? The person is not a party in this charge and the order challenging the jurudiction of the court is refused.”

The judge said Mr Ehie’s name was only mentioned as a person who is at large, which was just a statement.

The judge held that Mr Ehie had yet to be joined as a defendant in the charge.

The judge said that if Mr Ehie was not at large, he should make himself available to the police.

“If that person is not at large, let him make himself available to the police,” said the judge.

The judge subsequently struck out Mr Ehie’s prayer, seeking to strike out his name anywhere it was mentioned in the charge.

Meanwhile, the judge has stood down the matter to hear the bail applications of the five defendants.

(NAN)