Justice  Anenih had refused to grant the bail application filed by Bello, saying it was filed prematurely.

Since Monday, the social media has been awash with the story of comparison between Bello who is charged with a fraud of N110 billion against Kogi State, and human rights activist, Dele Farotimi who was brought to an Ado-Ekiti Federal High Court in handcuffs over charges of criminal defamation of a Senior lawyer, Chief Afe Babalola SAN.

Pictures of both Nigerian citizens were placed side by side with a caption “Yahaya Bello who stole N110 billion is free, while Farotimi fighting against corruption in the judiciary is in chains”. The picture was used to depict the state of the Nigerian Justice System where people always claim that there are two sets of law, one for the rich, the other for the poor.

However, it is not clear if the social media campaign has any influence on the court’s decision to adjourn the bail application of Bello till next year, to buttress the legal position of “equality before the law”.

The former governor is standing trial, along with two others, in an alleged N110bn money laundering charge brought against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

The judge however admitted Umar Oricha and Abdulsalam Hudu, Bello’s co-defendants to bail in the sum of N300million each with two sureties.

Justice Anenih, while delivering a ruling said Bello’s bail application is incompetent having been filed when Bello was neither in custody nor before the court. “Consequently, the instant application having been filed prematurely is hereby refused,” she said.

Recalling the arguments before the court on the bail application, the judge had said, “before the court is a motion on notice, dated and filed on Nov. 22.

“The 1st Defendant seeks an order of this honourable court admitting him to bail pending the hearing and determination of the charge.

“That he became aware of the instant charge through the public summons. That he is a two-term governor of Kogi State. That if released on bail, he would not interfere with the witnesses and not jump bail.”

She said the Defendant’s Counsel, JB Daudu SAN, had told the court that he had submitted sufficient facts to grant the bail. He urged the court to exercise its discretion judicially and judiciously to grant the bail.

Opposing the bail application, the Prosecution Counsel, Kemi Pinheiro SAN,  argued that the instant application was grossly incompetent, having been filed before arraignment.

He said it ought to be filed after arraignment but the 1st Defendant’s Counsel disagreed, saying there was no authority “that says that an application can only be filed when it is ripe for hearing.”

Justice Anenih held that the instant application for bail showed that it was filed several days after the 1st defendant was taken into custody.”

Citing the ACJA , the judge said the provision provided that an application for bail could be made when a defendant had been arrested, detained, arraigned or brought before the court.

Bello had filed an application for his bail on Nov. 22 but was taken into custody on Nov. 26 and arraigned on Nov. 27.