An Abuja High Court yesterday granted bail to son of late Head of State, Gen. Sani Abacha, in the case of theft and receiving stolen property.

An Abuja High Court yesterday granted bail to Mohammed, son of late Head of State, Gen. Sani Abacha, in the case of theft and receiving stolen property instituted by the Federal Government against him and one Atiku Bagudu.

Mohammed was, however, immediately whisked away by heavily armed security agents, but there are indications that on fulfilment of the bail requirements he would be released today.

Penultimate week Mohammed was relieved of a murder charge when the Supreme Court ruled that he has no case to answer in the assassination of Alhaja Kudirat Abiola, who was killed June 4, 1996.

Mohammed had brought an application praying the High Court in Abuja to release him on bail when despite the Supreme Court ruling he was still held at Kuje prisons due to his trial for financial crimes.

The charges against him include looting government funds (theft), receiving stolen property and conspiracy, a criminal but bailable charge.

At the court’s sitting yesterday, counsels to both parties argued for and against the application before the Chief Judge of the FCT High Court, Justice Dahiru Saleh, granted Mohammed’s prayer.

The court granted him bail in the sum of N10 million, two sureties with property worth N10 million, which Certificate of Occupancy would be deposited with the court.

Saleh also ruled that Moha-mmed’s international passport should be held by the Federal Government while he should be under the surveillance of security operatives.

A.B. Mahmud, SAN who led the applicant’s team of lawyers prayed the court to ” grant the application for bail pending the outcome of this suit and secondly for any other orders as the court may deem fit in the circumstances”.

He added,” The court has the discretion to grant the bail where the conditions stated in S. 341(2) of the Criminal Proce-dure Code are fulfilled. These are, that the person will not jump bail, the prosecution will not be prejudiced and no ground exists for the accused to commit another offence”.

Mahmud further contended that “the charges for which the application is before this court are on counts of theft, receiving stolen property and conspiracy, and the court has the discretion to grant bail if he (Mohammed Abacha) can place materials which meet the requirements of the court”.

“The onus on the applicant as the authorities have shown, is to place these materials before the court and once he has done that, the burden is on the prosecution to show reason why the bail should not be granted,” he said.

Mahmud supported the application with some Court of Appeal decisions, Abiola vs FRN (1995) 1NWLR Chief Emeka Anthony Ani vs. State (2001) FWLR the basis of which he raised some questions.

“What is the nature of the charge? What is the severity or otherwise of the punishment? What is the character of evidence? Does the applicant have any previous criminal record? Is there a likelihood of the applicant repeating the offence?”

Mahmud said that there is no likelihood of the applicant committing any other offence “Mohammed’s affidavit has stated that he will not jump bail, run away or commit another offence.

“In the evidence before the court there is ample justification for your lordships to grant the application in Mohammed’s favour. The Federal Government claims that Mohammed will interfere with the charge- no basis has been given, the charge is before the court and investigation has been completed.

“The international passport of the applicant has been in the custody of the Federal Government since 1998. When all these factors are put together and weighed there is nothing put forward by the respondents that should inhibit the discretion of the court in his favour.”

The Federal Government opposing the application through the Director Public Prosecution (DPP), Mrs. Stella Omiyi, said “if Mohammed is granted bail he will interfere with proper investigation and prosecution of the offence against him which involves billions of dollars which the Federal Government is still tracing in various local and international banks.”

She added, “There is a possibility of him jumping bail because of the nature of the charge he is facing. The 111 counts show the seriousness of the case”.

The DPP further submitted that based on the strength of evidence against him the court should refuse the application.

The application brought pursuant to S. 341(2) Criminal Procedure Code and S. 36 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria was supported by an affidavit in which the applicant had averred that he became the head of his family since the demise of his father, and he has been in prison custody since August 1999 when he was arrested and charged before a Lagos High Court which charges were quashed in July 2002 by the Supreme Court.

Since 1999, he said, the family has suffered untold hardships as a result of his detention, he has also been sick and undergone two surgeries at the National Hospital in Abuja”.

Granting the application Saleh said, “We have looked at the issues of prosecution, which is already concluded and undertaking to which the prosecution has not brought materials challenging their assertion.”

The criminal proceedings against Mohammed and his business partner, Bagudu were brought on 111 count charges of theft.

The Federal Government’s charge sheet, with No. FCT/HC/M/1685/2000 accused Mohammed and Bagudu of ” dishonestly receiving stolen property worth millions of pounds and dollars, property of the Federal Government on or about the 6th of January 1998 to 17th August 1998, and voluntarily assisting in concealing stolen property, of the same sum, which you had reason to believe the same to be stolen property”.

Two years ago Mohammed applied for an order quashing the charges and terminating all criminal proceedings connected to it as Section 5 of Decree 53 of 1999 stated that, “no criminal proceedings shall lie against any of the accused persons who have already complied with the prevailing law”.

The said Section 5 of Decree 53 of 1999 stated that all those that have cooperated and returned funds belonging to the Federal Government can no longer be prosecuted or dealt with in any other manner.

Abuja High Court referred the part of the matter that relates to Decree 53 to the Court of Appeal for interpretation and determination.

Mohammed and Bagudu alleged that they have returned to the Federal Government, a total of USD 625,263,187.19 and 75,306,886.93 Euros.

Therefore Mohammed and his co-accused insist that they are not guilty of stealing or dishonestly receiving stolen property.

Last week Mohammed had received a discharge warrant with appeal No. SC.290/2001, signed by Hon. Justice Salihu Modibbo Alfa Belgore commanding the prisons officials to ‘discharge Mohammed Sani Abacha, so committed, unless he shall be in your custody for any other cause’.

Before the Supreme Court judgement the Abacha family had in a freedom-for-money deal agreed to refund over $1 billion of their liquid assets to the Federal Government in return for freedom from prosecution.

Julcit Sanda, This Day (Lagos), July 25, 2002