The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Chief Mike Ozekhome

  • Patience Jonathan’s $15.5m: Ozekhome, EFCC’s lawyer clash over representation

    Patience Jonathan’s $15.5m: Ozekhome, EFCC’s lawyer clash over representation

    Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Chief Mike Ozekhome and counsel for the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Rotimi Oyedepo clashed at the Federal High Court in Lagos yesterday.

    It was over the representation of four companies that pleaded guilty to laundering $15.5million allegedly belonging to former First Lady Dame Patience Jonathan.

    Ozekhome is claiming to have been validly appointed to represent the firms. Another lawyer, Luke Aghanenu, also claimed that he was briefed by the companies to represent them.

    The companies are: Pluto Property and Investment Company Ltd, Seagate Property Development and Investment Company Ltd, Trans Ocean Property and Investment Company Ltd and Avalon Global Property Development Ltd.

    The EFCC arraigned them with a former Special Adviser on Domestic Affairs to President Goodluck Jonathan, Waripamo Dudafa; a lawyer, Amajuoyi Briggs; and a banker, Adedamola Bolodeoku.

    Unlike the companies, Dudafa, Briggs and Bolodeoku pleaded not guilty to the 17-count charge.

    Aghanenu filed a motion for change of counsel, praying the court to hold that he was validly appointed by the companies’ directors to represent them, not Ozekhome.

    The motion was argued yesterday before Justice Babs Kuewumi.

    Ozekhome urged the court to dismiss the application for change of counsel.

    Oyedepo said he was not opposed to the motion.

    There was a heated exchanged between Ozekhome and Oyedepo when the SAN accused EFCC of trying to determine which lawyer would represent the companies.

    Ozekhome said the EFCC, being the prosecution, should not be interested in who represented the companies.

    He said: “Because we want to set aside the guilty plea of the companies, they arranged with the EFCC to change counsel. We’ll not allow that to happen. They’ll continue to contend with my face.

    “It already shows that you (EFCC) have an interest in who represents the defendant you’re prosecuting.”

    But, Oyedepo described Ozekhome’s comments as prejudicial, saying they were unfair to him and EFCC.

    “The allegation made by the learned SAN is totally unmeritorious. It is not in the interest of justice. It’s prejudicial to us. It’s unfortunate.

    “This is not the only case we are both involved in. So, why would I not want to see his face?  My prayer is that he should be busy, that people should contact and give him briefs,” he said.

    Oyedepo said it was wrong for Ozekhome to “scandalise” him. But the SAN insisted that the EFCC had a preference for the lawyer who would represent the firms.

    Ozekhome: “I did not scandalise him. I only said that EFCC wanting to determine who represents the defendants in a matter they are prosecuting shows they have interest in the matter.

    “Otherwise, why would directors of a company plead guilty on behalf of a company after they had earlier said they didn’t know anything about the company?

    “I wasn’t casting any aspersions on him. I was making a statement of fact. And I maintain it till death, till eternity,” Ozekhome said.

    Oyedepo sought the court’s leave to explain why he was not opposed to application for change of counsel. But other defence counsel objected on the basis that EFCC was only a respondent, not an applicant.

    Justice Kuewumi tried to calm them down, saying Ozekhome’s comments was not part of his records.

    Ozekhome also accused the EFCC of trying to intimidate judges, saying: “Stop intimidating the judiciary!”

    The judge responded: “This court cannot be intimidated.”

    Oyedepo said it was “unfair” for Ozekhome to make such as allegation.

    In an affidavit in support of Ozekhome’s motion, a lawyer in his firm, Chimaobi Onuigbo, said the companies’ representatives who pleaded guilty to money laundering (Friday Davis, Agbo Baro, Dioghowori Fredrick and Taiwo Ebenezer) had earlier denied having anything to do with the companies or being directors.

    He said the representatives also refused to accept service of processes in a suit by Mrs. Jonathan against EFCC and others pending before Justice Mohammed Idris of the same court.

    The deponent noted that Justice Idris had directed parties to serve Briggs with the process since he was on record as the Companies’ Secretary.

    Ozekhome said when Briggs was served with the processes, he instructed him to defend the companies.

    “I was briefed not just on this matter but on the other matters involving the companies, even on appeal. They want an unknown entity to displace me. It is infra dignitatem (beneath dignity), abominable,” he said.

    But, Oyedepo said the court had earlier recognised the companies’ individual representatives, who he said had the right to appoint their counsel.

    Justice Kuewumi adjourned till March 13 for ruling on which lawyer to represent the companies.

     

  • Melaye’s recall: There is no restraining order – INEC

    Melaye’s recall: There is no restraining order – INEC

    •Senator’s supporters seek divine intervention

    Barring a last-minute change of mind, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) will begin today the recall of Senator Dino Melaye (Kogi West).

    But supporters of the embattled senator have been pleading with some Christian clerics to intervene in the matter.

    A team headed by INEC National Commissioner might oversee the process, which may also involve its Operation Department.

    A top INEC official, who spoke in confidence, said: “There is no restraining order from any court. We will go ahead with the first leg. But if along the line, INEC is stopped from going ahead with the exercise, we will stop it.

    “Pasting the verification notice is just the first leg of the process, which cannot hurt Melaye in any way.

    “Even the process does not amount to removing the senator. By virtue of Section 110, a lawmaker is only opportune to gauge the mood of his or her constituents on his or her performance.

    “If a lawmaker is doing well, he or she should feel free to face the electorate. The process is not a setback at all for any lawmaker.”

    Responding to a question, the source added: “A team to be coordinated by the National Commissioner for Northcentral will oversee the process. Definitely, the Operation Department will be involved.

    “INEC will,  however, seek legal opinion immediately it is served the ruling of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

    “We have subsisting court judgments, including those of the Court of Appeal,  indicating that no court can stop a recall, which is like an election.”

    Melaye’s counsel Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN) flew into Abuja yesterday.

    Some supporters of the embattled senator have been begging some Christian clerics to assist by whipping up religious sentiments, another source said.

    The INEC timetable shows that  Melaye’s recall will run from July 10th to August 19th.

    The notice, dated July 3, 2017, reads: “In exercise of the powers conferred on the Independent National Electoral Commission (“the Commission”) by Sections 69 and 110 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended); Section 116 of the Electoral  Act 2010 (as amended) and of all the powers enabling it in that behalf, the Commission hereby issues this timetable schedule of activities for the recall of the Senator representing Kogi West Senatorial District, Kogi State.”

    The details of the timetable are as follows:

    • Notice of Verification(July 10, 2017). To be posted at the constituency (INEC LGA office, Lokoja).
    • Last day for submission of application by interested observers (31st July 2017). INEC headquarters.
    • Last day for submission of names of verification agents for the member sought to be recalled and the petitioners (August 10, 2017). By a letter addressed and submitted to the Resident Electoral Commission (REC) indicating the Polling Unit verification agents arranged by LGAs as well as collation agents and where they will serve.
    • Stakeholders meeting (August 15, 2017). INEC State Office.
    • Conduct of Verification (August 19, 2017). To be held in the Polling Units in the constituency.

    “The commission shall issue the timetable and schedule of  activities for the conduct of referendum subject to the outcome of the verification exercise.”

  • Lawyers call for probe of Buratai’s claims

    Lawyers call for probe of Buratai’s claims

    Senior lawyers on Wednesday called for further probe of allegations by Chief of Army Staff, Lt. Gen. Tukur Buratai, that some individuals and politicians had been approaching some officers for undisclosed reasons.

    According to them, the matter should not end with Buratai merely issuing a statement and warning those involved to desist from such acts.

    Activist-lawyer, Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), said the officers involved as well as the politicians should be identified.

    “I’ll advice the military to investigate properly and if possible set up a special panel over this matter,” Ozekhome said.

    The SAN believes the state of affairs in the country was an ideal setting for a military coup, adding that Buratai’s claims should not be treated with kid gloves.

    Ozekhome said: “I believe that there is no smoke without fire. I will prefer that the military authorities dig deep down into this apparent kite that has been flown.

    “Military coupists never write a love letter to say they they’re coming. They normally strike when the situation is abysmally bad.

    “All the coups in Nigeria, from the Kaduna Chukwuma Nzeogwu coup of  January 15, 1966, to the Aguiyi Ironsi takeover, to the Gowon counter-coup, which was regarded as the Northern coup against the Igbo coup, to the Murtala Muhammed coup against the Gowon regime, before Murtala Mohammed was killed in February 1976, up to the coup of Gen Muhammadu Buhari of December 31, 1983 against a democratically elected government of Shehu Shagari, up to the Babangida coup of August 27, 1985, before the Abacha coup – all the coups have always been played out when there is so much disaffection and dissatisfaction among the populace.

    “So, it is, therefore, not inconceivable that some military personnel, seeing the shambles, the directionlessness, the lack of compass, the state of fixation and melancholy in the country may want to find an extra-legal of having another government.

    “Whoever is approaching the military officers, they should find them out. It may be that it is the military officers that are reaching out to the politicians. It could either way – a symbiotic relationship.

    “It is difficult for any politician to be bold enough to approach a military man for the purpose of planning a coup.

    “I rather believe that it is the other way round. It’s a military man who might say: ‘If we do this, do we have the backing?’

    “The politicians do not have the arms and the ammunition and weaponry to carry out a coup. But they have the war chest to sponsor, just as happened in the failed coup of Major Okar on April 22, 1990.”

    Constitutional lawyer, Ike Ofuokwu, said Buratai’s warning was not enough.

    “It’s not just enough for the COAS to warn his men to desist from hobnobbing with politicians and the allegation swept under the carpet.

    “It’s very imperative that further steps are taken through a process of proper and discreet investigation to uncover the reasons for this unholy alliance so as to nip it in the bud if it is inimical to our national security or if it will result in a breach to our democratic dispensation.”

  • Lawyers to EFCC: Name owner of seized money 

    Lawyers to EFCC: Name owner of seized money 

    Lawyers on Friday urged the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to name the owner of the huge sums of money found in an Ikoyi apartment.

    Constitutional lawyer and rights activist Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN) said the claim that the money belongs to the NIA was “facical”.

    He said there was no way a reasonable person would agree that an intelligence agency would hide money in an apartment.

    The SAN urged EFCC to name and shame the owners, saying someone must own the apartment.
    Ozekhome said: “We seem now fixated to name, shame and humiliate Nigerians with the paint brush of shame, odium, obloquy and denigration.

    “How can about N15billion be found in highbrow Osborne Road, Ikoyi, by no means a back squalid street? How can the equivalent of CIA, keep such hard currency in cash at an unguarded apartment, tucked away with many other apartments in a block of flats, not in a separate heavily fortified and fiercely guarded stand -alone building that has “keep off” carefully imprinted on it?

    “What was it meant for and who approved it and in which budget? Who was the whistleblower that could identify that such money was ‘hidden’ in the bedroom in flat 7A, leaving out flat 7B, yet not knowing who kept the money there or its ownership?

    “Why was EFCC not pictured or recorded on video going into the apartment, before we suddenly saw an arranged ‘counting’ of money? Are there no CCTV in such a highbrow? Can we see the footages, please?
    “Only last week, N49m orphaned sum was ‘arrested’  at Kaduna Airport! Then, suddenly another sum of orphaned N448m was ‘discovered’ in an ownerless shop in Victoria Island. Who owned the plaza? Who sold there? Are there no CCTV there? Can we see them, please?

    “The truth is that all these simulated, ‘arranged’ ‘discoveries’ can only temporarily divert attention from the hunger, squalor, fear, disease, non-performance and cluelessness of this government.

    “But, unfortunately, even lies have their expiry date. Truth is inexorable, immutable and eternal.The chicken will finally come home to roost,” Ozekhome said.

    To him, the report that the money belongs to the NIA was “farcical, heretic, total hogwash, bunkum and balderdash”.

    “Let this government and its minions credit Nigerians with some modicum of sense and capacity to reason, even with their valiant attempts to cow, browbeat and intimidate all opposition elements and critical voices in their so called corruption war.

    “At least, not even the terror halo cast on our individual and collective psyche has dulled our analytical minds.

    “The entire theatricality and Baba Sala’s Alawada Kerikeri buffoonery ought to be reserved for some circus show at the National theatre or Traffagal Square, where comedians and humour merchants entertain. The emergent facts do not show  NIA’s ownership of the money, but the grand cover-up of a serving minister’s ownership of the money.

    “It is so, so sad that all these national diversions are simply geared towards highlighting and emphasising the omnipotence and indispensability of just one man, Ibrahim Magu, as Executive Chairman of the EFCC.

    “We should build strong institutions, not strong individuals. Before Ibrahim Magu, there was a Nuhu Ribadu; there was a Mrs Waziri, and there was an Ibrahim Lamorde.

    “After Magu, there would still be another EFCC Executive Chairman. All these so-called humongous recoveries of orphaned monies are simply geared towards showcasing ineffable efficiency, effectiveness and matchless proficiency. It simply doesn’t work that war.

    “In the USA, wherefrom we borrowed our presidentialism, the equivalent agency works silently behind the scene, only seen, but never heard, except where it becomes absolutely necessary.

    “But, here in Nigeria, the EFCC engages in grotesque media trial, hifalutin and shocking disclosures of orphaned monies whose destinations after the media hype is never known.

    “Where are all the alleged recoveries of vast sums, attached properties, etc, made by the EFCC kept, and how much are they? When asked this question by the Senate during screening, Magu told a shocked and bewildered Nation he did not know!”

    Another SAN, Seyi Sowemimo, said if the money truly belongs to the NIA, the agency should come forward to explain the purpose.

    “I find it strange that a public agency like the Nigerian Intelligence Agency (NIA) would come forward and admit that it kept the money there. What could be the reason for keeping such money there? Is it in any way tied to its official duties? What was the purpose?

    “It is only when the NIA discloses this that one can know if it is concerned with its functions and I don’t know if this is something that they should do without disclosing it to maybe an institution like the Central Bank.

    “The position as I have always understood it is that you cannot keep such monies in a private residence. But I am even going beyond that in order to come to a view of the matter. It isn’t enough for the NIA to say ‘it is our money’.

    “They need to go beyond that and say whether it is in any way connected with their statutory duties and how they came about the money. Why should a minor institution like that not have the money in a bank? To me, it does not add up.

    National President, Committee for the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR), Malachy Ugwummadu, said the true owner of the money must be exposed.

    “It raises questions of the legality of warehousing those kinds of sums. If the NIA claims it owns the money, to what extent has it also explained the need for such humongous sums kept outside the banking system?
    “Was it for an operational purpose? What purpose requires those kinds of amounts and needed to be done only by the disbursement of the money in the manner that they were found?

    “When were they kept there? For how long have they been there? Who authorised them to be kept there? For what purpose? These are questions that must be answered by anyone who shows up claiming to be the owner of that kind of money.

    “Otherwise, it would raise suspicion that we are looking at a system that encourages even official financial transgressions and that supports the kind of temerity we are seeing,” Ugwummadu said.

  • Fayose paid N75m into Ozekhome’s account from N1.2bn Dasuki’s funds — EFCC

    The EFCC on Wednesday told a Federal High Court in Lagos that Ekiti State Governor, Ayodele Fayose, made a payment of N75 million to a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chief Mike Ozekhome, from the N1.2 billion the governor received from a former National Security Adviser, Sambo Dasuki.

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission said it froze Ozekhome’s account because the money was suspected to be proceeds of crime.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) recalls that Ozekhome had urged Justice Abdullazeez Anka to unfreeze his firm’s account which the court ordered at EFCC’s instance on Feb. 7.

    Opposing the application, EFCC’s lawyer, Mr Rotimi Oyedepo, argued that Ozekhome ought to have reasonably known that the money he received as part payment for legal fees was proceeds of “fraudulent activities”.

    He said: “EFCC received an intelligence showing that one Mr Ayodele Fayose received N1.2 billion from the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA) through the then Minister of State for Defence, Musiliu Obanikoro.”

    He said Obanikoro conveyed the money in an aircraft to Akure airport for delivery to Fayose in neighbouring Ekiti.

    Oyedepo said it was investigated and it was discovered that the sum of N137 million was paid into an account no. 1003126654 operated by Fayose on June 26, 2014.

    “On August 22 and 27, 2014, the sum of N50 million and N118 million was also credited to the account.”

    Oyedepo said having discovered that the funds were proceeds of crime, EFCC approached Justice Mohammed Idris of Lagos division for an order to freeze the account pending conclusion of investigations.
    The lawyer said that the order by Justice Idris was not appealed by either Fayose or the bank where the money was lodged.

    “The N75 million is from the proceeds of the alleged crime fraudulently taken from the ONSA and kept in Fayose’s account from where it was transferred to Ozekhome.

    “ EFCC is empowered to freeze any money suspected to be proceeds of crime even if it is not in possession of the person committing the unlawful act.”

    He argued that nothing had been showed to contradict the fact that the money came from ONSA, adding that Ozekhome could not also claim not to know the source of the money.

    Arguing his application to unfreeze the account, Ozekhome said it was not a lawyer’s duty to investigate the source of his legal fees.

    Besides, he said as at the time Fayose paid him the money, the governor’s account had been unfrozen by an order made by Justice Taiwo Taiwo of the Ekiti Division of the court on Dec. 13. 2016.

    He said that the judge on Jan. 31 also refused EFCC’s application to stay execution of the judgment of Dec. 13, 2016.

    Ozekhome said EFCC obtained the order freezing his account 47 days after Fayose transferred the N75 million.

    “The account frozen by Justice Idris had been unfrozen by Justice Taiwo and made operational after it was found that material facts were suppressed,” he said.

    The Senior Advocate said that the N75 million was part payment for the professional fees having handled eight cases for Fayose and his aides.

    He said that the total sum owed his chambers by Fayose was N250 million and that he wrote Fayose demanding payment of the fees, and that the governor sought for his understanding because his account was frozen.

    He also said when Justice Taiwo unfroze Fayose’s account, he (Ozekhome) sent the governor a reminder to pay the money after which he made the N75 million.

    “There was no encumbrance on the account from which the money was transferred,” Ozekhome said, recalling that the bank in Ekiti also allowed Fayose to withdraw N5 million in cash from the account.

    He said it was wrong for the EFCC to conclude that the money was a proceed of crime when Fayose, who enjoys immunity as a sitting governor had not been tried or convicted.

    Justice Anka fixed April 3 for ruling.

  • EFCC vs Ozekhome: Judge orders service of hearing notice 

    EFCC vs Ozekhome: Judge orders service of hearing notice 

    The Federal High Court in Lagos Thursday fixed March 2 for hearing in a suit by human rights lawyer Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN) seeking to vacate the order freezing his firm’s account.

    Justice Abdulazeez Anka ordered that a hearing notice be issued to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

    He had on February 7 ordered a temporary forfeiture of N75million found in the Guarantee Trust Bank account following an application by the EFCC.

    The commission had no representation Thursday.

    Ozekhome said the suit was filed on February 14 and served on EFCC on February 20.

    Justice Anka said the commission was still within time to respond.

    “They’re entitled to seven days. Their time has not lapsed. Let’s give them their time. So we’ll give them seven days,” he said.

    Ozekhome asked for the earliest date for hearing “because of the urgency of the case.”

    He is praying for an order discharging and/or vacating forthwith, the interim ex-parte order of forfeiture to freeze or attach the money for 120 days.

    Ozekhome said EFCC did not disclose the fact that Justice Taiwo O. Taiwo of the Federal High Court in Ado Ekiti had defrozen the account of Ekiti State Governor Ayo Fayose account, thereby allowing the governor to operate it, before he transferred N75 million to the account of Mike Ozekhome Chambers.

    Ozekhome said as at the time Fayose transferred the money, there was no order freezing Fayose’s account.

    Ozekhome said the rules regulating ex-parte applications were blatantly violated by the EFCC in obtaining the order.

    The SAN sought an order restraining the Federal Government and the EFCC, whether by themselves or their agents from dealing in anyway and manner with his operation or his proprietary rights to the account.

    Ozekhome said EFCC’s application was filed in bad faith and because of his “strong and uncompromising stance against some of the obnoxious anti-masses policies of the present administration and the judicial victories he has so far secured against the EFCC in different courts in Nigeria”.

    According to him, the action is unconstitutional as it offends sections 36, 37 and 41 of the 1999 Constitution as there was no legal justification for EFCC’s action.

    “The Applicant’s family, staff, dependants, associates, business and livelihood will greatly suffer, and are already suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable damage if this application is not granted, and the blockade or freezing of the account lifted immediately.

    “The interest of justice demands that these prayers be granted as it will ensure that the Applicant and his family, staff, associates, livelihood, dependants and business do not suffer untold and irreparable damages,” Ozekhome said.

    He said the N75million was part-payment of legal fees from Ekiti State Governor Ayodele Fayode.

    “The issue of whether or not the funds in Governor Fayose’s account from which the N75 Million was posted to Mike Ozekhome’s Chambers GT Bank account is suspected proceed of crime is currently on appeal as filed and entered by the self same Counsel to the respondent herein, Mr. Rotimi Oyedepo Iseoluwa,” Ozekhome said.

    Justice Anka adjourntill March 2.

  • Court freezes Ozekhome’s account over suspicious N75m lodgment

    Court freezes Ozekhome’s account over suspicious N75m lodgment

    The Federal High Court in Lagos on Tuesday ordered a temporary forfeiture of N75million found in the account of an activist-lawyer, Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN).

    The account is domiciled in Guaranty Trust Bank (GTB).

    The order followed an application by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

    Justice Abdulaziz Anka gave the order based on motion ex-parte filed by the commission.

    EFCC prayed the court to freeze Ozakhome’s account temporarily on the ground that the N75 million was suspected to be proceed of crime.

    The commission said the lawyer deposited the money last December 15.

    EFCC’s lawyer Mohammed Idris moved the application.

    An EFCC investigator, Tosin Owobo, who swore to an affidavit of urgency, prayed the court to grant the application.

    The commission asked that the account be temporary frozen for 120 days pending conclusion of investigation.

    Justice Anka granted the prayer, adding that any party not satisfied with the ruling could appeal.