The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN)

  • Akingbola’s lawyer to court: EFCC’s witness lied

    Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), counsel for defunct Intercontinental Bank Managing Director Dr Erastus Akingbola, yesterday accused a prosecution witness, Abdulraheem Jimoh, of “deceiving the court”.

    He said the witness claimed to have obtained a Master’s Degree when he did not.

    Jimoh was testifying in Akingbola’s trial by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) before Justice Mojisola Olatoregun of the Federal High Court in Lagos.

    He had on Tuesday testified that Akingbola repaid his companies’ debt using the bank’s N10billion.

    Led in evidence by the prosecuting counsel Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), Jimoh, who was Intercontinental Bank’s Chief Inspector, said yesterday: “These payments were used to settle the indebtedness of the companies in which Dr Akingbola and his wife had majority shareholding.”

    He said there were no loans granted to the companies.

    “I carried out the investigation in my capacity as chief inspector of the bank. I submitted my report to the management, which was forwarded to the EFCC.

    “In all the transactions, they involved companies which Dr Akingbola and his wife were beneficial owners,” he said.

    Under cross-examination, Olanipekun asked Jimoh about his academic qualifications.

    The witness said he obtained his first degree from the Ahmadu Bello University in 1982.

    He said he obtained additional qualifications, but did not mention a Master’s Degree.

    Olanipekun alleged that Jimoh had earlier claimed before an Ikeja High Court (where Akingbola was first tried) that he had a Master’s degree.

    “We will expose you for who you are. You told another court that you had a Master’s Degree when you do not. You are here to mislead this court as you did previously in Ikeja,” Olanipekun said.

    The witness said he enrolled for the Master’s programme, but could not conclude it because he did not complete the projects.

    Read also: Joshua, Wilder to fight Nov or Dec – Hearn

    Olanipekun said: “Your course became abridged because of examination malpractices for which you were involved.”

    The witness said: “No sir”, adding that he stated he had a Master’s degree because he had “a statement of attendance”.

    Before the trial commenced yesterday, EFCC re-arraigned Akingbola on an amended charge, which was reduced from 26 to 22 counts. He pleaded not guilty.

    Jacobs said the counts “were reduced for easy understanding,” but Olanipekun countered him by saying that “a lot of things were brought into” the amended charge.

    The case was first handled by Justice Charles Archibong, who struck out the charge for lack of diligent prosecution. EFCC appealed.

    Last May, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision overruling Justice Archibong and directing Akingbola to face trial in the 10-year-old case.

    The prosecution alleged that Akingbola, between November 2007 and July 2008, approved a credit facility of N8billion each to Soo-Kok Holding Limited, Tofa General Enterprises, Cinca Nigeria Limited;l, Harmony Trust and Investment Limited and Stanzus Investment Limited.

    EFCC said the illegal transactions were carried out in contravention of “accepted practice or Intercontinental Bank Plc’s regulations.”

    It said Akingbola violated Section 15(1)(a)(i) of the Failed Banks (Recovery of Debts) and Financial Malpractices in Banks Act, Cap F2, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and was liable to be punished under Section 16(1)(a) of the same Act.

    The prosecution alleged that under Akingbola’s watch, Intercontinental Bank had N87.6billion non-performing credit burden.

    It said Akingbola failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure compliance with the requirement to maintain, at all times, the minimum capital adequacy ratio specified by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) in compliance with Section 13(1) of the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act, Cap B3 Laws of the Federation 2004.

    Trial continues today.

  • Court adjourns for ruling in GTBank, Innoson appeal suit

    The Court of Appeal sitting in Enugu Thursday adjourned sine die for ruling in an application brought before it by Guaranty Trust Bank (GTBank) seeking to amend its motion of appeal against a judgement given by a Federal High Court, Awka against the bank.

    At the resumed hearing of the matter Thursday, counsel to GTBank, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) informed the court that the appellant (GTBank) had its notice of appeal against the judgment of the Federal High Court, Awka.

    Opening his address, Olanipekun informed the court that he would like to withdraw the application dated June 22, 2016 and sought the court to grant him leave to do so. This application for withdrawal of the motion seeking an extension of time to respond to the counter affidavit filed by Innoson against the motion to amend the notice of appeal was opposed by counsel to Innoson Motors and Chief Innocent Chukwuma, Prof. Joseph Mbadugha.

    Arguing that the court does not have the jurisdiction to grant hearing to the appellants, Mbadugha maintained that the court should hold the balance between the contending rights of all parties.

    Read Also:GTBank: Innoson admits misleading public on N14b court ruling

    In maintaining this balance he averred, the court should note that they (Innoson Motors) have a motion before the court challenging that the applicants cannot be allowed to move any applications before the court since they are yet to comply with a previous order of the court.

    He further argued that by order 80 of the Supreme Court Rules, since the appellants appeal has been entered at the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal lacks the right to adjudicate on it.

    Responding to Innoson’s argument, counsel to GTBank noted that Mbadugha’s positions were unconstitutional. He maintained that once an application for withdrawal has been made, the applicant can withdraw his application and such an application cannot be opposed.

    Maintaining that it is within the court’s jurisdiction to grant the leave being sought, Olanipekun argued that the right of appeal is a constitutional right that should not suffer any distraction or nuances of the respondent.

    Upholding Olanipekun’s argument, the court led by Justice Ogunwumiju ruled that by the provision of the 1999 constitution, an appellant has the right to withdraw its application. “The application hereby stands withdrawn and struckout”, she ruled.

    With the application withdrawn, Olanipekun moved a motion praying the court for leave to amend its notice of appeal dated January 28, 2015 challenging the order of the Federal High Court, Awka.

    This motion was again challenged by counsel to Innoson Motors who argued that where an appeal has been entered at the Supreme Court as in the case at hand, the lower court (Court of Appeal) loses the right to entertain the matter in any sort. The only jurisdiction the lower court has he argued, is to transmit all pending applications to the appellate court.

    Urging the court to disregard Innoson’s argument, GTBank’s counsel argued that what is before the Supreme Court is an appeal on an interlocutory application, which is totally different from the substantive suit being argued by the parties.

    “A respondent to an appeal does not have the locus standi to ask for a stay of proceedings. The only party that can ask for stay of execution is an appellant who has an appeal”, he argued.

    The matter was the adjourned for ruling on a date to be communicated to the parties in the suit.

  • ‘Lagos’ judiciary is Africa’s biggest’

    ‘Lagos’ judiciary is Africa’s biggest’

    A one-time President of Nigeria Bar Association (NBA), Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN has described the Lagos State Judiciary as the busiest in Africa, apart from South Africa’s.

    His comments came on the heels of Monday’s statement by Governor Akinwunmi Ambode that the state has Nigeria’s busiest and foremost judicial system.

    Olanipekun said the statistics showed that volume of cases filed in Lagos courts were unmatched by that of any African judicial system, except, perhaps, that of the Southern African country.

    He stated this on Tuesday in his keynote address ‘Promoting a pace-setting and productive judiciary in Lagos State’ during a Bar and Bench Forum, which was part of activities marking the state’s new legal year.

    The lawyer called for an urgent recruitment of more hands for the state’s judiciary, particularly on the High Court Bench, to cater for the judicial challenges facing it.

    According to him between 2015 and October 4, 2017, a total of 3548 civil and criminal cases were filed before the Lagos State High Court, while the Federal High Court Abuja had a total of 3963 cases within the same period, yet the Federal High Court has about 100 Judges as against 56 judges in Lagos.

    ‎Olanipekun, who also identified the need to stop delay in the process of swearing in the Lagos Chief Judge, charged the State Judicial Service Commission (SJSC) to rise to the task.

    “I must not be mistaken as blaming the Lagos State Chief Executive for any interregnum in the appointment of a substantive Chief Judge of Lagos in succession to the Hon. Justice Funmilayo Atilade who retired upon the attainment of the constitutional mandatory retirement age of 65 years on September 24, 2017.

    “The fact remains that the SJSC ought to have anticipated that the immediate past Chief Judge would retire on a particular day, thus initiating the process of appointment of a successor pretty early enough, to take care of submission of the name/names to the NJC, who in turn would meet to interview the nominated candidates for consequent recommendation to the Governor for appointment.”

    Lagos State Acting Chief Judge, Justice Opeyemi Oke, who chaired the event, said part of the reforms of her administration is that lawyers will now serve‎ as court registrars.

    Justice Oke said 28 legal practitioners are already undergoing training for that purpose.

    She pledged that the bad eggs tarnishing the judiciary’s image will be flushed out of the system.

    The CJ added that a committee headed by Justice Kazeem Alogba has been set up to prepare the 2018 rules of court.

  • LAUTECH Crisis: Ajimobi, Aregbesola pledges irrevocable commitments

    LAUTECH Crisis: Ajimobi, Aregbesola pledges irrevocable commitments

    • As Olanipekun heads visitation panel‎

    Following the lingering crisis rocking the Ladoke Akintola University of Technology(LAUTECH), Ogbomoso, the Oyo State Governor, Senator Abiola Ajimobi and his counterpart from ‎Osun State, Rauf Aregbesola on Wednesday evening pledged their irrevocable commitment to the joint ownership of  the institution in accordance with establishment laws.

    This was part of both governments resolution at the end of a four-hour meeting held at the Oyo State Governor’s office in Ibadan.

    The institution had in recent times faced the challenges of funding from its owner states, which they hinged on the economic challenges bedevilling the nation.

    Ajimobi, who addressed journalist after the meeting, appealed to the institution’s academic staff to resume academic activities while they address their grievances.

    He also disclosed that a visitation panel to be headed by Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) will review the current terms of engagement with a view of consolidating the joint ownership.

    Other members of the panel are Hon Rasheed Afolabi(Osun), Prof. (Mrs) Akinola (Osun), Prof. Sola Fajana (Osun), Dr Tunji Olaopa (Oyo), Prof. Ayo Salami (Oyo) and Mr S. A Raji(Oyo).

    The panel has Mrs A. O. Makanjuola, the Permanent Secretary, Oyo State Ministry of Education, Science and Technology as Secretary.

    The Olanipekun panel was expected to conduct an audit into the institution’s sources and application of funds while proposing strategies for overall improvement of its quality of education and service delivery.

    The governor said they regretted the current challenges of funding and management confronting the institution and restated their commitment to moving the institution forward.

    “We have both agreed on the necessity for a comprehensive restructuring of the institution to ensure fair and effective development.We also agreed on the distribution of academic resources, physical structures and other assets of the university across the two states to achieve national, regional and global reckoning,”he said.

    Ajimobi said that they have both resolved to rededicate their efforts towards the development of mutually beneficial goals that would further cement their bond of friendship and brotherhood.

    He said both governments enjoined residents, stakeholders, students, teachers and workers in the respective states to go about their lawful duties.

    The owner governments urged them to resist any temptation to take laws into their hands, saying anyone that does otherwise would face the full wrath of the law.

  • SANs disagree on legality of Fayose’s frozen account

    SANs disagree on legality of Fayose’s frozen account

    Senior lawyers Tuesday disagreed on whether it was legal for the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to freeze Ekiti State Governor Ayo Fayose’s account.

    They agreed that immunity does not stop a governor from being investigated, but there was no consensus on whether a governor’s account can be frozen.

    Those who spoke on the issue include former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) presidents Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) and Dr Olisa Agbakoba (SAN); Chief Emeka Ngige (SAN), George Oguntade (SAN), Jibrin Okutepa (SAN) and constitutional lawyer Ike Ofuokwu.

    Olanipekun and Agbakoba said only a court could decide whether the account of someone with immunity can be frozen.

    According to Olanipekun, the Supreme Court case of Fawehinmi v IGP (2002), which held that a sitting governor can be investigated while in office, might not be a direct authority to settle the question.

    He said: “A case is only authority for what it decides. The present position is dicey and fluid. To my mind, any sitting governor who’s shown to have attracted illicit funds to his personal account can and should be investigated. But the cardinal question is: can his account be frozen without him knowing why it has been frozen by any agent or agency of government?

    “I rather think otherwise, as freezing of account presupposes that an application has been made to and granted by the court to so do.In addition , an enrolled copy of the order should be served on him , giving and specifying reasons for the freezing , so as to enable him challenge the order if he so wishes. All these conditions precedent have to be complied with as we operate a constitutional democracy rooted in the rule of law.

    “On the flip side, it can also be argued that if a sitting governor can only be investigated for the time being as the constitution clothes him with immunity from any civil or criminal proceedings, is freezing of his account on the order of court not another way of subjecting him to criminal prosecution, contrary to the clear imperatives of the constitution?

    “This is because there can’t be a freezing action without a prior court order; and for any freezing application to be filed in court, the name of the sitting governor has to stated as the defendant/ accused.”

    He cautioned lawyers and commentators against “jumping into conclusion on any issue without weighing the implications of what we say or sell to the public.”

    For Agbakoba, while immunity does not stop criminal investigation against a sitting governor, he does not think EFCC was right to freeze Fayose’s account.

    “It is doubtful, however, if freezing account is within the scope of investigation. I think not. I think it is a case to be tested in the courts,” Agbakoba said.

    Ngige, however, believes EFCC did not err. “The EFCC has the power to freeze the account of any person suspected to be involved in the commission of a crime. This power is not restricted to accounts of any person enjoying immunity be him a Governor or President.

    “The immunity offered by section 308 of the Constitution is limited to arrest and prosecution. It does not cover investigation of crime. Interim freezing of a bank account involved in suspicious activity like money laundering is neither illegal nor unlawful.

    “Freezing of account is part of investigation and therefore no law has been violated more so when the huge sums of money found in the instant account is alleged to have come from the State treasury. EFCC should get to the root of the matter and charge those without immunity if there is a prima facie case disclosed,” Ngige said.

    Oguntade also backed EFCC, saying the commission was right to freeze the account. He said Section 34 (1) of the EFCC Act empowers the commission to freeze such an account “if satisfied that the money in the account of a person is made through the commission of an offence.”

    “On the issue of whether the bank account of a sitting governor can be frozen given the provisions of section 308 of the 1999 Constitution [as amended], the answer is clearly in the affirmative.

    “That a person protected under section 308 of the 1999 Constitution, going by its provisions, can be investigated by the police for an alleged crime or offence is, in my view, beyond dispute.

    “The Supreme Court further held that ‘criminal investigation’ is totally different from ‘criminal proceedings’ in respect of which a Governor enjoyed immunity under section 308 of the Constitution.

    “So, whilst a criminal charge cannot be preferred against a sitting governor, there is nothing that prevents the EFCC from investigating a sitting Governor and to freeze his account in the course of doing so upon obtaining the requisite court order,” Oguntade said.

    Okutepa said a governor can be investigated and his account frozen, adding that there is “nothing illegal and unconstitutional about it if the condition precedent is followed.”

    Ofuokwu said: “If it is in a bid to trace stolen funds, I am of the firm opinion that the EFCC can freeze the account where the stolen funds are traced to. The constitution did not confer immunity from investigation. Hence, I respectfully submit that immunity from prosecution does not confer on anybody whatsoever immunity from investigation.”