Tag: Alleged forgery

  • Alleged forgery: Saraki, Ekweremadu, others get conditional bail

    Alleged forgery: Saraki, Ekweremadu, others get conditional bail

    Senate President Bukola Saraki, Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremadu, and two others were yesterday arraigned before a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in Jabi, Abuja over their alleged involvement in the forgery of the 2011 Senate Standing Orders.

    Saraki, Ekweremadu, former Clerk of the Senate Salihu Abubakar Maikasuwa and Deputy Clerk Benedict Efeturi were arraigned before Justice Yusuf Haliru on a two-count charge of criminal conspiracy and forgery.

    The four defendants – each of them facing a maximum of 14 years imprisonment –  pleaded not guilty when the charge was read to them.

    The defence team comprising Ikehwukwu Ezechukwu (SAN) for Maikasuwa, Mahmud Magaji (SAN) for Efeturi; Paul Erokoro (SAN) for Ekweremadu and Joseph Daudu (SAN) for Saraki, later argued the separate bail applications filed for each of the defendants.

    They said the offences for which their clients were arraigned were ordinarily bailable and pleaded with the judge to grant bail to all the defendants in view of their status in the society and that they respected the court by turning themselves in on learning about the charge against them.

    Lead prosecution lawyer Muhammad Diri did not oppose Saraki’s bail on the ground that he heads the legislative arm of the government, and that a denial of bail for the Senate President has the capacity of destabilising that arm of the government.

    Diri, who is the Director of Public Prosecution of the Federation (DPPF), opposed bail to the three others on the ground that they earlier evaded service of the charge on them. He relied on the provision of Section 162(b) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015 and urged the court to reject bail to Maikasuwa, Efeturi and Ekweremadu because they could evade trial.

    Responding on point of law, the defence argued that since the defendants were already in court, what happened before their arraignment was no longer material.

    Magaji noted that the provision of Section 162(b) of the ACJA relates only to where a person charged with criminal offence with punishment exceeding three years could only be denied bail where he/she exhibits the tendency to evade trial.

    Daudu, Erokoro and Ezechukwu argued in a similar manner, with Daudu noting that by the positions held by the defendants, they cannot jump bail.

    He urged the court to admit all of them to bail since they are all facing a similar charge, and the prosecution having elected not to oppose bail for the Senate President, who was listed as the 3rddefendant.

    In a  consolidated ruling, Justice Haliru noted that the essence of bail was to ensure that the liberty of the accused person (defendant), as guaranteed under the Constitution, is protected and to ensure that such a defendant attends court to stand trial.

    He added that the decision to grant bail was at the discretion of the court after considering all conditions.

    The judge, who relied on the provision of the ACJA in relation to the provision that a person standing trial should be granted bail to enable him/her prepare for his/her defence.

    The judge granted bail to the defendants, but on the conditions that each should produce two sureties, who must have property either in Asokoro, Maitama, Wuse 2 or Garki (all in Abuja).

    He said the defendant would be remanded in Kuje prison, Abuja should they fail to meet the conditions attached to the bail granted them at the close of work yesterday.

    The medium size courtroom located on the second floor of the three-floor courthouse had been  packed as at 8am. By 8.30am, a detachment of security personnel, including the regular police, riot police and men of the Department of State Service (DSS), some of who were stationed at the main entrance to the court premises, restricted access to the premises when the court house was becoming overcrowded.

    By 8.45am, the defendants and some legislators, who accompanied them, entered the court premises in a long convoy of vehicles. They went straight into the court room.

    When the judge emerged from his chambers around 9am, the packed courtroom became rowdy, with many politicians and lawyers struggling for the few chairs available. The judge immediately returned to his office and directed that the courtroom be cleared, a directive that became impossible for court officials to enforce.

    The judge returned to the courtroom about 30 minutes later. Before the proceedings, the judge urged lawyers representing the parties and the media to be fair in their dealings in relation to the case. He promised to be just to all.

    “We must do this with the fear of God in our hearts. We must remember that we are one. We must remember that God has given us the opportunity to help shape our legal process. I represent all interests. I shall do all within my best to ensure justice in this case,” the judge said.

    Dressed in national attires, Saraki, Ekweremadu, Maikasuwa and Efeturi stood quietly in the dock as proceedings progressed. They were later allowed to sit around 11.30a.m. when Magaji urged the court to allow them to sit down.

    The proceedings that lasted for about two and half hours, ended at 11.35a.m., when the court adjourned till July 11 for the commencement of trial.

    As at 1pm yesterday, all the defendants had left the court premises, having formalised the bail process.

    The statement of offence in relation to count one of the charge marked: CR/219/2016 reads: “Criminal conspiracy, contrary to Section 97 of the Penal Code Law.”

    The particulars of offence in relation to the count reads: “That you Salihu Abubakar Maikasuwa, Benidict Efeturi, Dr.  Olubukola Saraki and Ike Ekweremadu on or about the 9th day of June 2015 at the National Assembly Complex, Three Arms Zone, Abuja, within the jurisdiction of this court, conspired among yourselves to forge the Senate Standing Order 2011(as amended) and you thereby committed an offence of conspiracy, punishable under Section 97(1) of the Penal Code Law.”

    The statement of offence in relation to count two is “Forgery, contrary to Section 362 of the Penal Code Law.”

    The particulars of offence in relation to this count reads: “That you Salihu Abubakar Maikasuwa, Benidict Efeturi, Dr.  Olubukola Saraki and Ike Ekweremadu on or about the 9th day of June,  2015 at the National Assembly Complex, Three Arms Zone, Abuja, within the jurisdiction of this honourable court, with fraudulent intent, forged the Senate Standing  Order 2011 (as amended), causing it to be believed as genuine Standing Order 2015  and circulated same for use  during the inauguration of  the 8th Senate of the National Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, when you knew that the said Order was not made in compliance with the procedure for the amendment of Senate Order. You thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 364 of the Penal Code Law.”

  • Alleged forgery: Buhari’s advisers, 12 others to testify against Saraki, Ekweremadu

    Alleged forgery: Buhari’s advisers, 12 others to testify against Saraki, Ekweremadu

    Ahead of their trial on Monday for alleged forgery, the Federal Government has listed 14 witnesses against the President of the Senate, Dr. Bukola Saraki, and the Deputy President of the Senate, Chief Ike Ekweremadu.

    Others for trial on Monday are the immediate past Clerk to the National Assembly, Salisu Abubakar Maikasuwa, and the Deputy Clerk to the National Assembly, Benedict Efeture.

    But there was anxiety last night, following the police report which indicated that the 7th Senate leadership, headed by a former President of the Senate, Chief David Mark, was also culpable on the amendments to the Senate Standing Rules 2015.

    The Deputy Clerk to the National Assembly, Efeture, told the police that the 7th Senate leadership ordered the 2015 Standing Rules as amended by their convention and practice.

    According to the court documents obtained by our correspondent, the Federal Government witnesses include the Special Adviser to the President on National Assembly Matters, Sen. Ita Enang, and the Special Adviser to the President on Political Matters, Sen. Babafemi Ojudu.

    Other prosecution witnesses are Sen. Suleiman Othman Hunkuyi; Sen. Solomon Ewuga; Sen. Ahmed L. Lawan; Sen. Abdullahi Gumel; Sen Kabiru Garba Marafa; Sen. Gbenga Ashafa; Sen. Robert Boroffice; Sen. Abu Ibrahim; Dr. Ogozy Nma; Adem D.J; ex-DIG Dan’Azumi J Doma and ACP David Igbodo.

    The police report, signed by ex-Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Dan’Azumi J. Doma, however, gave insights into the alleged forgery scandal.

    The police report, which was dated July 14, 2015 with reference CR: 3000/X/FHQ/ABJ/VOL.186/88, established the following:

    • Senate Standing Order 2015 as amended was given to Senators on June 9, 2015.
    • The contents of the Senate Standing Oder 2015 as amended are substantially different from the Senate Standing Order 2011 as amended.
    • The Senate Standing Orders 2015 which was used to inaugurate the 8th Senate on the 9th of June 2015 was ordered by the leadership of the 7th Senate without following Section 110 of the Senate Rules 2011 as amended.
    • The practice where some group of Senators amends the Rules of the Senate without following legal procedures is criminal.

    The report said: “That on the 9th of June, 2015, a document titled ‘the Senate Standing Order 2015 as amended’ was distributed to Senators of the 8th Senate for their inauguration as members.

    “That the contents of the Senate Standing Oder 2015 as amended are substantially different from the Senate Standing Order 2011 as amended. Sections 2 (IV), 3(3) E, I, ii, iii, G AND H, 5 and 7 of the Rules are different in the two Orders.

    “  That the Senate Standing Order 2015 as amended was used by the clerks of the National Assembly and the Senate as the Senate Standing Orders to inaugurate and conduct elections into the offices of the presiding officials of the Senate viz the Senate President, the Deputy Senate President etc.

    “ That the testimonies of some members of the 7th Senate including that of the Chairman of the Business and Rules Committee and Senators of the 7th Senate indicate that the Senate Standing Order 2011 was not amended during the tenure of the 7th Senate which  ended on the 8th of June, 2015.

    “That the procedure for the amendment of the Senate Standing Order as contained in Section 110 of the Senate Standing Order 2011 as amended stipulates that any amendment to the Senate Standing Orders should be in line with the following procedures:

    • Any Senator desiring to amend any part of the Rules or adding any new clause shall give notice of such amendments in writing to the President of the Senate giving details of proposed amendment.
    • The President shall within seven working days cause the amendment to be printed and circulated to members. Thereafter, it shall be printed in the Order Paper.
    • The mover or movers of the amendment shall be allowed to explain in details the proposed amendments, thereafter in details the proposed amendments, thereafter the Senate shall decide by majority votes whether the amendment should be considered.
    • If the decision is to consider the amendments, then another date shall be set aside by the Rules and Business Committee, whereby opportunity would be given to Senators to further propose amendments but must strictly be confined to the original amendments. “Two- third majority shall decide the amendments but must strictly be confined to the original amendments.
    • Two third majorities shall decide the amendments and such amendments shall form part of the Rules of the Senate.
    • That the Clerk of the Senate, Mr. Benedict Efeturi, who doubles as the Deputy Clerk of the National Assembly confirmed in his statement that the Senate Standing Order 2015 as amended was produced on the orders of the Senate Leadership without following the amendment procedures as contained in the Senate Standing Orders 2011 as amended.
    • That the allusion by the Clerk of the Senate to procedure of amending the Standing Orders of Parliament through “practice and not necessarily by procedure” is a misplaced analogy and undemocratic because the Nigerian Senate has clearly laid down without a proviso, the procedure to be adopted in amending its standing orders as contained in section 110 of 2011 Senate Standing Orders.

    “From the findings, especially from the statement of the Clerk of the Senate who doubles as the Deputy Clerk of the National Assembly, the Senate Standing Orders 2015 which was used to inaugurate the 8th Senate on the 9th of June 2015 was ordered by the leadership of the 7th Senate without following Section 110 of the Senate Rules 2011 as amended which requires that any amendment to the Senate Standing Rules must be debated and approved by the Senators on the floor of the Senate.

    “This practice where some group of Senators amends the Rules of the Senate without following legal procedures is not only criminal but portends danger for our growing democracy and should be discouraged.

    “However, it is recommended that the file be sent to the Attorney-General of the Federation for vetting to determine if this conduct constitutes crime or should be treated as an internal affair of the Senate.”

    It was not immediately clear on what will be the fate of 7th Senate leadership, which was headed by former President of the Senate, Chief David Mark.

    But in the statement of the Deputy Clerk of the National Assembly, Benedict Efeture, he insisted that the 7th Senate leadership ordered the amendment of the Standing Rules.

    Efeture said: “I am the Deputy Clerk of the NASS. The senate leadership ordered the 2015 Standing Rules as amended by their convention and practice. Standing orders 2003, 2007, 2011 and 2015 follow similar practice.

    “In Congress and in Parliament, amendment of Standing Orders is by practice not necessarily by procedure.

    “The Ruling of the Senate President that Standing Rules of 2015 is the authentic is relevant please. Refer to the debates of the Senate on Wednesday 24th June, 2015. Senate leadership referred to was that of the 7th Senate.”

  • Three PDP chieftain battle to stop prosecution of alleged forgery

    Three chieftain of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Enugu State have filed an ex parte motion seeking to stop their trial for alleged forgery.

    In the motion filed before Justice Reuben Odugu of Enugu High Court, the PDP chieftain are asking the court to restrain the Enugu State Attorney General and the Inspector General of Police from going ahead with the criminal prosecution.

    The three PDP members are former House of Representatives member, Ogbuefi Ozomgbachi; Hon. Paul Anikwe and Mrs. Ify Ozoani, all from Udi/Ezeagu Federal Constituency in Enugu state.

    In motion No E/449/2015, initiated on November 11 2015, the three are praying to be granted Ex Parte order to stop their prosecution for forgery, impersonation and perjury, a matter already slated for next Wednesday.

    A fiat had already been granted by the Attorney General of the state to an Independent counsel for the prosecution after advice from the Federal Ministry of Justice.

    Justice Odugu had in December 2014 issued a restraining order on Ozomgbachi from parading himself as the candidate of the PDP for Udi/Ezeagu Federal Constituency.

    At the time, it was alleged that Ozomgbachi flouted the order and went to an Abuja High Court to institute a matter against Hon. Dennis Amadi, the acclaimed winner of the PDP primary election for the constituency.

    It was based on suspected forged documents tendered at the Abuja high court by Ozomgbachi and his purported Electoral officers, Anikwe and Ozoani, that made Hon. Amadi reported his suspicion to the Nigeria Police Force Headquarters that investigated the case.

    The police confirmed a criminal case of forgery, impersonation and perjury, and proceeded to prosecute those mentioned in the alleged offences at the Enugu high court.

    The PDP stalwarts had on July 28 2015, at the FCT High Court, filed a similar suit for fundamental human rights and a motion of ex parte to stop the police from prosecuting them.

    With the arraignment of the three suspects already slated for December 9, and the filing of the motion before Justice Odugu, the police are in a dilemma whether the court would grant the  application for motion ex parte or go ahead to entertain the prosecution.

  • Alleged forgery: EFCC arraigns lawyer, two Frenchmen

    Alleged forgery: EFCC arraigns lawyer, two Frenchmen

    A Nigerian lawyer, Ferdinand Egede and two French nationals, Gnahouse Sonrou Nazaire and Senoue ýModeste, were yesterday arraigned by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) before a Lagos High Court sitting on a four-count charge of conspiracy, forgery and uttering.

    The EFCC prosecutor, Chikezie Udozie, told the court that the defendants committed the alleged offences in May 28, 2007.

    He said they conspired amongst themselves to forge Rana Prestige Industry Ltd’s Ordinary Resolution, which was purported to have been signed by one Madam Rasheedatu.

    The prosecutor also alleged that on November 22, 2005, ýthe defendants forged a Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) form 17 which was also allegedly signed by Rasheedatu.

    He added that on the same date the defendants uttered the forged document to the commission as genuine.

    The defendants denied all of the charges.

    After listening to the submission of the first and second defendants’ counsel, Rickey Tarfa SAN, Justice Adebiyi granted the Frenchmen bail in the sum of N500,000 each with two sureties each in the like sum.

    They were remanded in prison custody pending the perfection of their bail conditions.

    The third defendant, who represented himself, was granted bail on self recognition.

    The case was adjourned till February 5 and 11, 2016, for trial.