The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Chief Judge of the Federal High Court

  • Fireworks in Fayose’s trial as judge, EFCC’s lawyer clash

    There were fireworks at the Federal High Court in Lagos yesterday as Justice Mojisola Olatoregun accused a prosecuting counsel Mr Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) of being “incompetent” and “extremely rude”.

    The judge accused Jacobs of engaging in jankara practice, but the Senior Advocate said he took “exception” to being described in such terms.

    He said it was the first time he would be so described by any judge in all his years of legal practice.

    The exchange occurred in the trial of former Ekiti State Governor Ayo Fayose.

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) accused Fayose of receiving and keeping N1.2billion and $5million allegedly stolen from the Office of National Security Adviser (ONSA) contrary to the Money Laundering Act. Fayose pleaded not guilty.

    The exchange occurred after the cross-examination of the 10th prosecution witness, Maroun Mechleb, who is the Chief Executive Officer of an Akure, Ondo State-based construction firm, Samchase Nigeria Limited.

    The witness testified that he handled several contracts for Ekiti State, which he said were facilitated by Fayose’s aide, Abiodun Agbele.

    He said there was a gentleman’s agreement that he would appreciate Agbele for every contract he facilitated.

    He said he gave Agbele N132.5million on one occasion as “appreciation” for an unspecified contract he facilitated.

    In one of the counts of the charge, EFCC alleged that Fayose acquired chalets 3 and 4, 6 and 9 on Plot 100 Tiamiyu Savage Street, Victoria Island, Lagos in the name of JJ Technical Services Ltd with N1,151,711,573.

    Mechleb told the court that he and his brothers, who testified earlier, also ran J.J Technical Services, but that the firm was unable to get a job from the state.

    The witness said he once lied to the EFCC about owning a property based on Agbele’s instructions in a bid to help “a friend”.

    His words: “Mr Agbele asked for a company we can use to get a job. I gave the name (J.J. Technical Services) to Abiodun Agbele to help get a job for the company.

    “Mr Agbele bought a property and put it in the company’s name. He gave me the documents of the property to sign. I cannot read English properly, but I just signed the documents,” Mechleb said.

    Jacobs asked him: “Did you know what the documents were about?”

    The witness said: “It was later that I got to know that the documents were about a property and I had to contact Mr Agbele.”

    On how he came to pay Agbele N132.5million, Mechleb said: “I had an agreement with Agbele that I would appreciate him. He gave me an account to send the money, which I have done.

    “He told me that I have one house, because I paid N132.5million to him. The truth is that the house does not belong to me but to Mr Agbele.

    “After I made the first statement at EFCC, my lawyer asked me to go back and say the truth.”

    Asked what he knew about Agbele, the witness said: “I know he was the one helping to facilitate the jobs. We agreed that when he gets the job for me, I will appreciate him.

    “We did not specify the amount, but it’s around 10 per cent.”

    Under cross-examination by defence counsel Mr Ola Olanipekun (SAN) (for Fayose) and Olalekan Ojo (SAN) (for Fayose’s co-accused Spotless Ltd), Mechleb said: “In making the first statement, I did not say the truth. I was trying to help my friend. I can lie to help a friend.

    “I later obeyed my conscience and went back to EFCC to say the truth.”

    Read also: Court seals Access Bank, Diamond Bank merger

    The witness said the contracts Agbele got for him were undocumented.

    “We were given about six or seven contracts by Ekiti State. The contracts Agbele got for me were not in writing. The description of what I was to do was given to me verbally.”

    He also said he never interacted directly with Fayose. “My interactions were with Mr Agbele, no more, no less,” he said.

    During cross-examination, Olanipekun tendered parts of Mechleb’s statements at EFCC.

    When Jacobs sought to tender the remaining part during his re-examination of the witness, Olanipekun and Ojo objected on the basis that Jacobs could not tender a statement at the re-examination stage.

    Justice Olatoregun upheld the objections, but added that Jacobs could “have another bite at the cherry” by tendering it later. She did not mark the document as rejected.

    Read also: Atiku queries Buhari’s qualification

    But the judge took offence when Jacobs made reference to a submission by Ojo during his objection.

    Justice Olatoregun said: “Mr Jacobs, you dare not! You are not competent to look into my ruling, to evaluate my ruling. You are totally incompetent, whether you are a Senior Advocate or not.”

    Jacobs said: “I was not referring to Your Lordship’s ruling.”

    Justice Olatoregun said: “You are going beyond your bounds. Do not let me trash your practice. Listen to me, if you re-evaluate my rulings in this court, you’ll get into trouble.

    “You can only go on appeal, Mr Jacobs. Your mode of advocacy, I do not understand it. It looks like what do they call it?… Jankara market practice.”

    Jacobs: “Thank you my Lord”.

    Judge: “You stand here to reevaluate my ruling; you are incompetent to do that. If you have any re-examination, you do that. If you do not have, call your next witness, or you take a date.”

    Jacobs: “I’m grateful to your Lordship. Thank you my Lord.”

    Judge: “You do not stand there with impetus and reevaluate my ruling. I have ruled, relying on two sections of the Evidence Act.

    “If you have an objection to that, you go on appeal. You have no competence, carrying your wig with arrogance, and we have a lot of young lawyers here. What are you teaching them?

    “You stand up to a judge and re-evaluate the ruling of a judge. It cannot happen in my court!

    “Re-examine your witness; if you are not re-examining him, then close your case.”

    Jacobs: “My Lord, I did not refer to Your Lordship’s ruling. I never said a word about Your Lordship’s ruling.”

    Judge: “I do not take tangential comments here. You are fond of doing that. You are an extremely rude senior advocate.

    “If you are a senior advocate, you are not older than me at the Bar and you are not older than me in age. In Yoruba land, we respect age. And in this job, we have what they call professional ethics and respect for each other.”

    Jacobs: “I have offered respect to My Lord.”

    Judge: “You have never offered it.”

    Jacobs: “For My Lord to say that I am jankara practice lawyer…”

    Judge: “Yes, I am saying it. When you finish here, you can write a petition to the NJC (National Judicial Council). I’m saying it, and I’m not going to withdraw it. I have said it. Go and do whatever you like

    “I have called you into chambers and I told you what you’re doing which is not right. You do not just ridicule yourself here, and you have not stopped.”

    Jacobs: “I’ve been in this job for a while. I have appeared before several judges, from the lower court to the Supreme Court. No judge has ever called me a jankara practitioner.”

    Judge: “I do not want to know. I do not want to know how many years…”

    Jacobs: “I never engaged in jankara practice, and I take exception to that word, jankara practice.”

    Judge: “Now, are you re-examining your witness?”

    Jacobs: “Yes, I am. But I take exception to that word, jankara practice. I take full exception to it.

    “I do my job according to my conscience; I will never pervert the course of justice; I will never call any witness to come here and lie against another person. I fear God. But for one to suppress truth, I will fight against it.”

    Two other Lebanese, Goshen Joseph and Joseph Mechleb, earlier testified that J.J. Technical Services had no jobs and never got any from Ekiti State.

    A lawyer, Mr Kennedy Osunwa, earlier testified that he was engaged to prepare a deed of assignment for a property on 100, Tiamiyu Savage, Victoria Island, Lagos.

    He said: “Sometime in 2014/2015, a company that I had retainership with as a tenant solicitor (Still Earth Ltd) called me and said they had acquired some properties lying at 100, Tiamiyu Savage, Victoria Island, and that they had concluded arrangement to sell some because they had a buyer.

    “The particulars of the buyer were given to me to prepare a deed of assignment. I was told that one Abiodun Agbele with a company, J. J Technical, were buying the property.”

    Justice Olatoregun adjourned until April 15 for continuation of trial.

  • Judges blame incompetent prosecution for day in high profile cases

    ….COTRIMCO identifies corruption as bane of judicial process

     

    Judges, including Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Adamu Kafarati and his counterpart at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Justice Isahq Bello have blamed incompetent prosecution for delay in the trial of high profile individuals.

    They identified poor investigation, incompetent drafting of charges, including filing of charges with multiple charges, without evidence to prove such charges; display of lackadaisical attitude on the part of prosecuting lawyers, among others, as causes of delay.

    They urged judges to be firm in the control and management of court proceedings, and exhibit enhanced commitment to the course of justice.

    The Chairman, Corruption and Financial Cases Trial Monitoring Committee (COTRIMCO), Justice Suleiman Galadima noted that corruption “has made a mess of our judicial process.”

    A Professor of Law and President, Centre for Socio-Legal Studies (CSLS), Yemi Akinseye-George (SAN) called for the provisions of better working tools and conducive environment for judges to operated as a measure against delay in trials.

    They spoke in Abuja on Thursday, at a “one-day interactive workshop for heads of courts and other stakeholders.”

    The well-attended event, with the theme: “Specialised court’s and the challenge of speedy dispensation of justice in high profile criminal cases (HPCCs), was put together by CSLS and COTRIMCO.

    Kafarati, who was represented by Justice John Tsoho (also of the Federal High Court), suggested the engagement of competent prosecutors and investigators to address the problem of delay.

    He cited the case of a former Nigerian Governor, who was jailed in a foreign country within a short time, while the prosecution in Nigeria was unable to commence trial, two years after some of the Governor’s alleged accomplices were charged before his court.

    The FHC CJ said the delay in the trial process is indeed, embarrassing to this country in view of the harm corruption has done to the society.

    He also blamed the defence for their exploitation of the provision of Section 36 of the Constitution that provides for the right to fair hearing, as a way of causing delay.

    He said: “Sincerely, as trial judge, it is difficult to ignore that provision when the defence call it to aid, because the Constitution, as we all know, is the grundnorm.

    “Something has to be done about amending that provision, which talks about the right to fair hearing. It should be tinkered with to allow for sufficient latitude, so that people don’t have blanket reliance on it to truncate criminal trials.”

    Bello, who was bitter about the congestion of courts dockets, years after the introduction of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, blamed investigating and prosecuting agencies, who file charges and bring defendants to court, without sufficient evidence to prosecute.

    He noted that judges handling HPCCs and heads of courts are often subjected to undue pressure for both within and outside the judicial system, with the intention of ensuring soft landing for the high profile defendant.

    Bello admonished court heads to always exercise their powers to re-assign cases, from a judge to another, upon complaints from outside the court, with circumspect to avert causing further delay and dampening the morale of the judges.

    The FCT CJ, who noted that some prosecuting agencies merely charge people to court with the intention of extorting them, suggested a procedure where the prosecution is required to obtain leave (permission of the court) before filing charges.

    He said this measure will serve as a sieving process to address the practice where prosecuting agencies file frivolous charges, which they intend not to prosecute because they lack the necessary evidence to support such charges.

    Chief Judge of Lagos State, Justice Opeyemi Oke, who was represented by Justice Oluwatoyin Taiwo (also of the High Court of Lagos State) assured of the state’s commitment to COTRIMCO’s efforts at eliminating delay in HPCCs.

    Justice Adebukola Banjoko of the High Court of the FCT, who was hailed for her brilliant handling of must HPCCs brought before her court, spoke about her experience of the antics of defence lawyers and identified drawbacks in the approach of the prosecution.

    She praised the many beautiful provisions of the ACJA and suggested modification to some provisions including restricting interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeal, rejecting appeal on issues already decided by the Supreme Court and limiting the number of times the prosecution could amend proof of evidence.

    In his contribution, Akinseye-George said: “In our humble view, to achieve the objectives of speedy trial, better working tools must be provided for the judges.

    “The salaries and allowances of judges which have largely remained static for several years despite inflationary trends and declining value of the Naira must be urgently reviewed upwards.

    “Effective E-recording of court proceedings should now be made mandatory. It is unacceptable that in this digital age we continue to operate an analog judiciary as judges continue to suffer the tedium of writing proceedings in long hand,” he said.

    He also spoke about software developed by a Nigerian IT expert, which was showcases at the workshop that provides an affordable solution to the long-standing problem of electronic recording of our courts.

    Justice Galadima (a retired Justice of the Supreme Court) said: “We all feel concerned that the pace of justice delivery is not moving fast enough to meet the constitutional standard of ‘trial within a reasonable time’.

    “This is particularly so in regard to the trial of High-Profile Corruption and Financial Crime Cases (HPCCs).

    “The prevalent practice under which political office holders and other high-profile defendants, who were charged to court several years ago are still undergoing trial due mainly to all manner of reasons makes a mockery of our judicial process.

    “Corruption, no doubt, has made a mess of our judicial process, and it is in the enlightened interest of the judiciary and entire legal profession, to restore confidence in the process.

    “We must reverse the prevailing perception that the judicial process is corrupt, ineffective, inefficient and susceptible to manipulation by the high-profile defendants and politically-exposed persons,” Justice Galadima said.

  • Ecobank asks CJ to re-assign Honeywell’s suit to new judge

    Ecobank Nigeria Limited has asked the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Ibrahim Auta, to re-assign a suit filed against it by Honeywell Flour Mills Plc and its sister companies – Anchorage Leisures Limited and Silaom Global Services Limited – to another judge.

    The bank said it no longer had confidence that it would receive a fair justice from Justice Muhammed Idris who is currently handling the case.

    In a letter to the CJ by the bank’s Company Secretary/Chief Legal Counsel Denike Laoye and Kehinde Dawodu of its Legal and Regulatory Unit, the bank said various events led it to conclude that the case should be better handled by another judge.

    “The bank states unequivocally that it no longer has confidence that it will fairly and dispassionately receive justice in the subject case in light of the various events showing the court’s apparent bias against the bank and its retained firm of solicitors.

    “We, therefore, sincerely pray that the subject suit be re-assigned to any other judge of the Federal High Court, Lagos,” the bank wrote.

    The bank said while ruling on contempt a contempt charge filed by Honeywell and others, the judge allegedly threatened to the “deal with” the bank when the plaintiffs’ counsel properly invokes the court’s disciplinary jurisdiction.

    “In determining the initial committal processes, His Lordship Idris J, went beyond the possibility of innocence or the presumption of innocence as required by law,” the bank said.

    The bank said the judge, without hearing from it, held that a ruling delivered on July 1, in which he refused to grant the bank’s application for stay of proceedings, was still pending.

    Besides, Ecobank said the judge allegedly refused to countenance its appeal before the Supreme Court and a pending motion for stay of proceedings.

    “Our senior counsel informed the court that in deference to the hierarchy of courts, particularly since the issue at hand is jurisdiction, His Lordship ought to adjourn the trial pending the decision of the Supreme Court on the same issue, which appeal is ripe for hearing.

    “Despite all these, His Lordship relied on the plaintiff’s sole affidavit and the ruling of 1st July, 2016 to adjourn for definite hearing the subject suit, shutting the bank out from traversing the narration by the plaintiffs’ counsel,” the bank said.

     

  • The Nation vs Senate: CJ directs judge to deliver verdict

    Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Ibrahim Auta, has issued a fiat directing Justice Mohammed Yunusa to deliver judgment in The Nation’s suit against the Senate.

    Justice Yunusa had adjourned the verdict before he was transferred to Enugu Division.

    Vintage Press Limited (publisher of The Nation), Editor Gbenga Omotoso and a correspondent, Imam Bello are the applicants.

    Through their lawyer Mr Wahab Shittu, they sued the Senate and National Assembly.

    A new judge, Justice Jude Dagat, took over the case, but the plaintiffs applied to the CJ for a fiat to enable Justice Yunusa return to Lagos to deliver the judgment rather than the case starting de novo (afresh).

    The applicants are praying for an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Senate from summoning them or compelling their appearance over a story.

    The Senate, last August 4, invited Omotoso and Bello over the story: Motion: 22 APC Northern senators ‘working against Buhari’, which was published last July 30.‎

    The Senate wrote again last August 11 threatening to invoke Section 89 (1) (D) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) to compel the applicants to appear.

    But Justice Yunusa made an interim order of injunction restraining the respondents from issuing a warrant to compel the applicants’ attendance before a Senate committee set up to investigate the publication.

    ‎He barred the respondents, their members, committees or agents from summoning the applicants or their agents before any Senate committee.

    In the fiat issued on February 10 and signed by the CJ, he directed Justice Yunusa to return to Lagos to deliver the judgment.

    It reads: “In exercise of powers conferred on me by virtue of Section 19 (3) of the Federal High Court Act 1973 and all other powers enabling me in that regard, I, Ibrahim Ndahi Auta (OFR), Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, do hereby order that the judgments in the civil suits listed in the shedule of this order which were pending before Hon. Justice M. N. Yunusa formerly sitting in the Lagos Judicial Division, be delivered by Hon. Justice M. N. Yunusa sitting in the Lagos Judicial Division.”

    The four cases listed in the schedule are Alhaji Jibrin Okelewu vs IGP, Vintage Press Limited vs National Assembly, Songhai Energy vs Maersk and Valueline Securities vs Bishop David Oyedepo.

    In an application filed last December 1, the Senate prayed the court not to deliver the judgment but to extend the time within which it “may” file and serve its counter-affidavit.

    The Senate sought an order striking out the suit for want of jurisdiction and prayed the court to set aside the proceedings, its orders and decisions.

    In a supporting affidavit, Clerk of the Senate’s Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions Committee, Freedom Osolo, said the National Assembly’s inability to respond to the suit on time “is not deliberate but is due to the non-service of the aforesaid process of this court on the second respondent”.

    In its preliminary objection, the National Assembly sought an order striking out the suit for being “premature, pre-emptive and speculative”.

    It argued that the applicants were attempting to prevent the lawmakers from carrying out their constitutional duties by filing the suit.

    But, the applicants said the Senate’s motion was an abuse of court process because it had ample opportunity to defend the suit.

    Shittu averred that the court adjourned the case severally to enable the respondents file their defence, but they “deliberately failed and neglected” to do so.

    Besides, the applicants’ lawyer said the respondents were served with the processes, which were acknowledged with an official stamp, according to affidavits deposed to by the court’s sheriff.

    According to the proofs of service exhibited before the court, the suit was received by the Office of the President of the Senate last September 1.

    The National Assembly was earlier served last August 27 through the Office of the Deputy Clerk to the National Assembly.

    The applicants are claiming that the National Assembly was attempting to gag the press through intimidation and by demanding that they disclose the story’s source.

    But, in its counter-affidavit, the Senate said the letters to Omotoso and Bello were “mere invitation”.

    It said the National Assembly “is not a law enforcement agency that can impede or prohibit the rights of the applicants”.

    The case has been adjourned till May 5.