The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Court

  • Activists go to court over digital rights bill

    Rights groups, the Digital Rights Lawyers Initiative and Laws and Rights Awareness Initiative, have sued President Muhammadu Buhari at the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja for not signing the Digital Rights and Freedom Bill 2018 or withholding his assent.

    The plaintiffs, along with Olasunkanmi Bello, said the National Assembly transmitted the bill to the President on February 4.

    They are seeking a declaration that, by virtue of Section 58(4) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the defendant lacks power “to remain silent and/or inactive” on the bill after 30 days of its transmission.

    They are praying the court to declare that the President’s silence on the bill after 30 days of its transmission constitutes a violation of Section 58(4) of the 1999 Constitution.

    The groups are urging the court to hold that by the President’s inactivity on the bill, it is deemed to have been assented to and thus become an Act of the National Assembly.

    The plaintiffs, through their lawyers Solomon Okedara and Olumide Babalola, are seeking a perpetual injunction restraining the President from withholding assent to the bill “same having been deemed assented to by the defendant”.

    In a supporting affidavit deposed to by Olivia Aisha, the plaintiffs said sometime in 2017, the two chambers of the National Assembly passed the bill into law.

    They said when the National Assembly refused to transmit it to the President for his assent, the second plaintiff filed a suit last September against the Clerk of the National Assembly.

    While the suit was pending, the Clerk transmitted the bill to the President on February 4.

    “I know as a fact that by virtue of the defendant’s position and constitutional provisions, he only has 30 days to either assent to the bill or withhold his assent.

    “I know as a fact that, since the bill was transmitted to the defendant on the 4th day of February 2019, a period of 34 days have lapsed and the defendant has neither signified that he assented nor withheld his assent to the said bill.

    “I know that a lot of pressure groups and non-governmental organisations have urged the defendant to assent to the bill but to no avail.

    “The defendant has in the past expressly withheld assent to some bills e.g the Electoral Act amendment bill but has remained silent on Digital Rights and Freedom Bill,” the deponent said.

    Sponsored by House Committee on Telecommunications Deputy Chairman Chukwuemeka Ujam, the bill proposes the protection of human rights online.

    It is designed to protect internet users in Nigeria from infringement of their fundamental freedom and also to guarantee application of human rights for users of digital platforms.

    It is in response to the need for a law on internet freedom which is consistent with international human rights standards.

    Proponents of the bill say some of the existing legislations criminalise some internet activities, thereby limiting freedom of expression online, right to information online and freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

    With no data protection law, the personal data of citizens are put at risk and the institutions or entities that collect this data are under no legal obligation to protect them, which experts say explains unsolicited messages and similar undue date exposures.

    The bill’s objectives are:

    • To guarantee the application of human rights which apply offline within the digital space and online.
    • To provide safeguards against abuse and provide opportunities for redress where infringement occurs.
    • To ensure data privacy and safeguard sensitive citizens’ data held by government and privacy institutions.
    • To equip the judiciary with the necessary framework to protect human rights online.
    • To safeguard the digital liberty of Nigerians now and in the future.
    • To seek the guarantee of inviolability of communications, except by order of court obtained in accordance to due process of law.

    An activist, Mbanan Mku, in an article, believes the bill will counter-balance the Cyber Crime Act 2016 and safeguard the rights of bloggers, data owners, and internet service providers.

    “It will also ensure that citizens are not sentenced to death by ‘hanging’ for constructive political criticism and political expression in the form of blogs, commentary, cartoons or memes,” he writes.

  • Court awards N200,000 damages against police, others for rights violation

    Justice  Chuka Obiozor of the Federal High Court in Lagos has awarded N200,000 against the Inspector General of Police (IGP) and eight others for breaching the fundamental rights of Okesuji Obatoyinbo and three others.

    The judge delivered a verdict in the suit filed last January 15.

    Through his lawyer, Richard Komolafe, the plaintiff sued over a landed property in Ilupeju, Lagos.

    The suit was supported by a nine-paragraph affidavit deposed to by Kunle Amosun and adopted by other applicants, namely Kunle Amosun, Eunice Obasohan and Stephen Ogunleye.

    Assistant Inspector General of Police, Commissioner of Police, Lagos State, one Patrick Atayero (ACP), Zone 2,  Adeniyi Adekunle (DSP), John Faluyi (ASP), Emmanuel Victor (Sergeant), also of Zone 2, Gbagada police station, Alex Gwarzah and Kayode Aiyetiwa are second  to ninth respondents.

    Although the respondents filed no process, Justice Obiozor held that the court “is entitled to look up its records suo motu” to do justice in the matter.

    He granted three of the five reliefs sought by the applicants.

    He held that the arrest of the applicants violated their fundamental rights as guaranteed by Section 35(1) of the 199 Constitution (as amended) and the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act Cap 10, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.

    The court also declared as unlawful, unjustifiable, illegal and unconstitutional the use of the second to the eighth respondents who are officers of the Nigeria Police Force (NPF), pertaining to ownership of the land by the ninth respondent.

    Justice Obiozor said he had assessed the allegations against the applicants and “failed to find criminality in it to justify the arrest, threat, harassment and detention of the applicants by the second to the eighth respondents at the behest of the ninth respondent”.

    He said the action of the respondents, therefore, was tantamount to breach of the applicants fundamental rights.

    “Upon a careful review of the peculiar facts of this case, I find that the arrest , threat, harassment and detention of the applicants justify grant of relief,” he said.

    The court, therefore, fixed damages at N200,000 jointly and severally against the respondents.

    The trial judge, citing related decided cases, held: “The Police have no business dabbling in a question of ownership of land.

    “The ninth respondent, who purport to lay adverse claim to the land involved in this case ought to head for the courts to assert his right, if any, but not to use the Police to wrest possession or assert title.”

    While acknowledging that the exercise of authority by the police is enormous, he held that it was “to obviate the prospects for mendacious, vindictive and fictitious reports and possibility of the Police abusing their powers,  court insist that the citizen’s fundamental  rights remain sacrosanct and their breach can only be excused by lawful justification”.

    The applicants had accused the respondents of arresting, threatening to arrest, detaining  and violating their  fundamental rights over the landed property in Ilupeju, Lagos which ownership they claimed followed its purchase in 1972.

    They claimed to have initially let part of it to one Mrs Ilaka for an event centre but later decided to develop the land into residential housing units.

    Following threats of arrest and intimidation by the police  allegedly at the instance of the ninth defendant, the applicants approached the court.

    They prayed for a declaration that the action of the respondents constitutes a violation of their fundamental rights.

    They asked the court for a declaration that the respondents’ act of threatening and intimidating them, using second to the eighth respondents  who are officers of the Nigeria Police Force (NPF), pertaining to ownership of the land is unlawful, unjustifiable, illegal and unconstitutional having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case.

    The applicants also prayed the court for an order of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents or their agents from further arresting or detaining any of them or their workers over any matter relating to or pertaining to the land ownership, land development fee and land ratification payment between the applicants and the ninth respondent.

    They also asked the court for general damages against the respondents, jointly and severally.

  • Court to decide ex-SEC DG, Gwarzo’s fate on April 12

    A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in Maitama has scheduled ruling for April 12 to determine whether or not to uphold the no-case submission made by suspended Director-General of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Mounir Gwarzo and an Executive Commissioner in the agency, Zakawanu Garuba.

    Gwarzo and Garuba are being tried on an amended five-count charge filed by the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission (ICPC).

    They are accused of misappropriating public funds estimated at N115million and conferring corrupt advantage on a public officer.

    The defendants resorted to making a no-case submission at the conclusion of the prosecution’s case.

    Lawyers to the defendants, Abdulhakem Mustapha (SAN) and Robert Emukpoeruo, as well as prosecution lawyer, Raheem Adesina, adopted their written submissions on Monday, following which the trial judge, Justice Hussein Baba-Yusuf fixed April 12 for ruling.

    Mustapha (for Gwarzo) urged the court to uphold his client’s no-case submission and hold that the prosecution has failed to lead sufficient evidence to warrant requiring the 1st defendant to enter a defence.

    He said the no-case submission was brought under sections 302 and 303 of the Administration if Criminal Justice Act (ACJA).

    Mustapha argued that the prosecution failed to make out any prima facie case against his client. He added that the evidence adduced were all contradictory.

    He noted that the prosecution, in its written address in opposition to the submission, relied on the law on certain political office holders, but admitted that SEC was not listed in the law.

    Mustapha urged the court to dismiss the charge, and discharge and acquit the 1st defendant.

    Emukpoeruo (for Garuba), argued in similar vein and urged the court to discharge and acquit his client.

    In his counter-submission, Adesina urged the court to dismiss the defendants’ no-case submissions and order them to enter their defence.

    Adesina argued that there was the need for the defendants to explain to the court where they get the severance package from since there was nowhere in Exhibit ICPC 3 before the court where severance package was mention.

    According to him, there was no single word of severance benefit in the SEC Board resolution if July, 2002 (Exhibit ICPC 3), adding that what was approved and collected was severance benefit when the first defendant never retired from SEC.

    Earlier, Adesina informed the court about an amendment to the charge, following which the defendants took fresh plea and pleaded not guilty.

  • Court sacks Delta APC factional chair

    A Federal High Court sitting in Asaba, Delta State has sacked the Delta State All Progressives Congress (APC) factional Chair, Jones Erue-led state executive committee.

    Also sacked were the ward and local government executives of the party.

    Justice Toyin Adegoke declared the plaintiff, Cyril Ogodo, as the authentic chairman of the main opposition party in the state.

    In suit number FA/ASA/CS/76/2018, the plaintiffs had sought 13 reliefs among which are a declaration that the Ogodo-led executive committee is the authentic state executive of the party.

    They also prayed the court to declare as null, void and of no effect any and every action purportedly taken, initiated or carried out by the fourth defendant, Jones Erue as chairman of APC (first defendant) by the second defendant (national Chairman, Adams Oshiomhole) in Delta State following his purported inauguration, swearing-in and recognition and/or appointment by the national chairman as chairman of APC in Delta State.

    The plaintiffs further prayed the court to declare the candidates that emerged from the primaries conducted by the Ogodo-led executive as the authentic list of candidates for the 2019 general elections.

    The court in the judgment, granted all the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs.

    A major fallout of the judgment is that the re-election of Senator Ovie Omo-Agege representing Delta Central, the election of a member of the House of Representatives, Mr. Francis Waive and the election of three members of the state House of Assembly, having emerged from the primaries conducted by the Erue-led state executives.

    Also affected were the nomination of Great Ogboru, the governorship candidate; immediate past governor and senatorial candidate for Delta south, Dr. Emmanuel Uduaghan; Delta north senatorial candidate, Doris Uboh among others.

    But counsel to the defendants, Dr. Okubor Nwachukwu said the judgment will be tested at the Court of Appeal, expressing confidence that it will be upturned at the appellate court.

    On his part, counsel to the plaintiff, Roland Ekpe said the judgment did not fall short of their expectations, noting that by implication, the nomination of candidates who flew the flag of the party in the 2019 general elections is null and void having emerged from the primaries conducted by the Erue-led executive.

    Cyril Ogodo said justice has been served on the contentious state executive committee of the party, describing the judge as incorruptible, “despite all the intimidation and frivolous petitions, justice was delivered.”

    Speaking in his capacity, brother to the governorship candidate, Mr. Turner Ogboru who was at the court, urged Ogodo and his group not to rejoice yet, saying that the judgment is void ab-initio.

    Mr. Ogboru said the judgment cannot stand legal scrutiny at the Court of Appeal, stating that the court was wrong to nullify the primaries conducted by the National Working Committee (NWC) of the party.

    He said, “When we profile it, we will go on appeal. The beauty of our jurisprudence is that the first court has its right but you have the upper court to correct all the errors of a lower court.

    “There was no dependable evidence to make the judge reach this decision. The judgment is void ab-initio; it does not even need an appeal to set it aside because this court cannot sit as Court of Appeal over another Federal High Court judgment.

    Continuing, “There is a Federal High Court subsisting judgment which has not be set aside, it is a consent judgment of which no one has against.”

  • How my stepdad, his mum, beat my brother to death – Teenager

    A teenager, Omobowale Sunmola, Thursday told a Lagos High Court in Igbosere that her stepfather and his mother beat her elder brother to death and dumped his corpse in a canal.

    Omobowale told Justice Sedoten Ogunsanya that the incident occurred at their Maryland, Lagos apartment in 2014.

    She was 11 at the time, she explained, and about to begin Junior Secondary School (JSS) 1, while her brother, Tunde, was 13.

    Omobowale, now 17, testified during the trial of her mother, Margaret Olufunmilayo Odunlade, her stepfather, Folorunsho Emmanuel and his mother, Funke Maxwell, for the alleged offence.

    Odunlade, Emmanuel and Maxwell were arraigned by the Lagos State Government in 2014, on a two-count charge of manslaughter and misconduct with regard to a corpse.

    Prosecuting counsel, Adebayo Haroun, said the offences were committed at about 6am, on August 2, 2014, at 17, Emmanuel Street, Maryland, Ikeja, Lagos.

    He said the defendants unlawfully killed Tunde Sunmola by beating him and not taking him to the hospital for treatment of injuries he sustained on his leg.

    Odunlade was also accused of dumping Tunde’s body in a canal.

    According to the prosecutor, the offences contravened sections 222 and 163 of the Criminal Law of Lagos State, 2011.

    Omobowale, led in evidence by Haroun, testified as the third prosecution witness.

    The witness said at the time, she lived with her mom, stepdad and his mom, while Tunde lived in Ijebu Ode with their grandmother, Mrs. Arinola Sunmola.

    She said Tunde was eager to see her and their mum, so their grandmother persuaded his mother to come along to Ijebu with her (Sunmola) and take him to Lagos on August 1.

    According to Omobowale, when they got to Lagos, “My mother asked Tunde to start moving ahead of us and when I asked her why, she said she didn’t want people in the area to know that Tunde was her son.

    “That night when my mom’s husband came back from work, he asked my mum, ‘who is this boy?’

    “My mom said: ‘He is one of my sons.’

    “Her husband said: ‘Did you tell me you had another son outside?’

    “My mum said it was a mistake.

    “So, they argued and he asked why she didn’t tell him about my brother. She could not say anything,

    “That night, after we slept, I heard, my mum’s husband and his mother beating my brother. My mum later carried my brother on her back and I woke up and asked her, ‘where are you taking him?’ She said she was taking him back to Ijebu. I told her we were going together but she refused.

    “When she returned, I asked her where my brother was. She said she had returned him to Ijebu.”

    The witness said the following day, a relation, ‘Aunty Yemi’, told her that her brother was dead.

    Omobowale’s testimony corroborated that of her grandmother, Mrs Sunmola, who testified earlier.

    Sunmola, the second prosecution witness, narrated how she found out Tunde was dead.

    She said: “Odunlade came in company of her elder sister named Yemi, and Tunde’s younger sister, Omobowale Sunmola, a day after she took Tunde to Lagos.

    “She asked me to give her some money which I did. On the same day, she came back again to ask for more money. I then told her that I would only give her on the condition that she brings back my grandson.”

    According to the witness, Yemi persuaded Odunlade to confess, but Odunlade said their vehicle had an accident on their way Lagos and Tunde was killed.

    “I requested that they bring Tunde’s corpse, and they agreed, but I did not allow my granddaughter, to go back with them. When they got to Mowe-Ibafo (in Ogun State), they told the driver of the car, who was taking them to Lagos that they wanted to defecate. He stopped and that was how they escaped, ‘’ Sunmola told the court.

    The witness said Omobowale later informed her that Tunde was beaten to death by her mother’s new husband and his mother.

    Following the conclusion of testimonies, Justice Sedoten Ogunsanya adjourned further proceedings till June 26.

  • Court remands father for allegedly defiling 17-year-old daughter

    An Ikeja Chief Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday remanded a 38-year-old electrician, Chukwueke Ashiedu in Kirikiri prison for allegedly defiling his 17-year-old daughter (names withheld) over the last four years.

    The court ruled that Ashiedu would remain in prison pending advice of the Lagos State Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

    Ashiedu is facing a lone count charge of child defilement before Chief Magistrate Olufunke Sule-Amzat.

    Prosecuting Inspector Benson Emuerhi, told the court that Ashiedu resident at Haruna area of Ikorodu committed the offence on November, 20, 2015 at his residence.

    Emuerhi alleged that the defendant had carnal knowledge of his 17 year-old daughter.

    He said the survivor informed her teacher, one Mrs. Caroline of her ordeal in the hands of her father and that the assault started four years ago.

    Emuerhi said the matter was later reported at the Gender Section of Lagos State Police Command, Ikeja, by the survivor and her teacher.

    Chief Magistrate Sule-Amzat did not take the defendant’s plea after the charge was read.

    She ordered that he should be kept in Kirikiri Prisons.

    She also ordered the Police to send the duplicate of the file to the DPP for advice.

    She adjourned the case till April 25.

  • Court hears evidence on final forfeiture suit against Patience Jonathan April 12

    A Federal High Court Lagos, Wednesday, fixed April 12, to hear oral evidence in a suit by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), seeking final forfeiture of about 8.4 million dollars, and N7.4 billion linked to former first Lady, Patience Jonathan.

    Justice Mojisola Olatoregun had in a ruling delivered on Feb.28, on the motion for final forfeiture, held that there were conflicting affidavit evidences, which could be best resolved if respective parties were called upon to give oral evidence.

    The case was consequently, adjourned until March 13 (today) for oral evidences.

    On Wednesday, the case could not proceed as earlier scheduled , while April 12 has been fixed as return date

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the EFCC had secured an interim order for forfeiture of the sums on April 20, 2018, before Olatoregun, following a motion exparte.

    It joined as respondents: Patience Jonathan, Globus Integrated Services Ltd, Finchley Top Homes Ltd., Am-Pm Global Network Ltd, Pagmat Oil and Gas Ltd and Magel Resort Ltd and Esther Oba.

    NAN reports that on Oct. 29, 2018, EFCC counsel, Mr Rotimi Oyedepo, had moved his motion for final forfeiture of the sums, urging that same be finally forfeited to the Federal Government.

    Meanwhile, defence counsel, Messrs Ifedayo Adedipe (SAN), Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), and Mr Ige Asemudara had respectively moved their processes in opposition to the motion for final forfeiture.

    On Jan. 15, the court had admitted electronic evidences presented by respondent counsel, which depicted video exhibits showing various business outfits of the third and sixth respondents

    The court had then adjourned for judgment.

    In a ruling on Feb.28, the judge had first dismissed an application by counsel to the respondents, seeking to set aside the interim forfeiture orders made on April 20, 2018.

    The court had held that it was satisfied that the requirement for the grant of the interim orders was met by the EFCC, adding that it was clear that at the time the interim order was made, there was no pending suit elsewhere.

    Meanwhile, giving its ratio on the motion for final forfeiture, the court held that it finds the affidavit evidences conflicting, adding that same can only be resolved, if the parties concerned were called upon to give oral evidences.

    The court had held :

    “The applicant relied on two grounds (1) That the court has the statutory power under section 17, to grant the reliefs sought and (2) That the monies are suspected to be proceeds of an unlawful activity or unlawful activities, diverted from the Federal Government of Nigeria,”

    The court had asked if having regards to the provisions of sections 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, as well as the available facts before the court, the applicant has made out a case for final forfeiture of the sums.

    The judge noted the various processes filed by parties to the suit which includes, affidavits, counter affidavits, further affidavits, reply affidavits written addresses, as well as exhibits .

    The court had then held :

    “I have examined the issues raised on both sides and i came to the conclusion after exhaustively going through the affidavits filed by parties, and i found the affidavits conflicting on material facts.

    “I believe in the circumstance, that the court cannot rely on its own opinion alone; the conflict must only be determined or resolved by the evidences of parties themselves, particularly as it relates to the source of the funds.

    “I believe parties should be heard and cross examined on this issue.

    “Parties are accordingly called upon to give oral testimonies in support of the case presented, ” The court had held.

  • Court remands three for alleged robbery, kidnapping

    A Senior Magistrates’ Court in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, has ordered the remand in prison custody of three persons for alleged kidnap and armed robbery.

    The suspects are Sylvanus Beakor, 53, Godspower Kagbara, 27, and Promise Kpakor, 23.

    They were said to have allegedly kidnapped Chinyere Umerah in order to demand ransom from her family.

    The suspects and others at large also allegedly dispossessed their victim of her Lexus 330 sport utility vehicle with number plate AKD 398 DZ, N180,000 cash and other valuables while armed with AK 47 rifle, pump action rifle, a locally-made long gun and other weapons.

    They were alleged to have demanded N10million ransom from their victim’s family and refused to release her after they were paid N300,000.

    The suspects allegedly committed the offence on November 20 last year, about 6:30pm, at Okpaku camp, Onne in Eleme Local Government.

    She adjourned the case till March 28.

     

     

  • Court gives surety ‘last chance’ to produce British N10.3m fraud suspect

    A Lagos High Court in Igbosere on Monday gave a surety, Nurudeen Ekundayo, till June 24 to explain his failure to produce a British man, Syed Mohammed Kamran, facing N10,320,000 fraud charge.

    Justice Modupe Nicol-Clay renewed her January 21 order for the defendant to either produce Kamran, forfeit his bail bond or be ready to serve his time.

    The judge warned Ekundayo, who was absent in court on alleged account of ill-health, that unless he appeared in person in court at the next sitting, a bench warrant would be issued against him.

    The warning followed an application for a bench warrant made by Lagos State counsel Bisayo Apata.

    The application was opposed by Ekundayo’s counsel, Mrs O. Adeniyi, who pleaded for more time because the surety gravely ill.

    Kamran was arraigned by the police in 2015 before Mrs Abimbola Komolafe of an Ogba Chief Magistrates’ Court, Lagos for allegedly duping 11 Nigerians of about N120 million.

    He allegedly obtained supplies of diesel but failed to pay for the products.

    He pleaded not guilty.

    The Briton spent several months in Kirikiri Prison custody following his failure to meet bail.

    But soon after he met his bail bond, he allegedly absconded.

    The Nation learnt that Kamran, who relocated to Nigeria from Essex, United Kingdom, was arrested by the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) of the Lagos State Police Command, at the Murtala Muhammed Internation­al Airport en route the UK.

    Kamran was re-arraigned before Justice Nicol-Clay in 2016 on a two-count charge of conspiracy and obtaining the N10,320,000 by false pretence from a traditional ruler in Imo State, H.H Ubochi C. Ubochi.

    The prosecution said the defendant committed the fraud through “an elaborate diesel Local Purchase Order (LPO) scam.”

    Kamran pleaded not guilty, following which he was granted bail.

    But soon after he fulfilled his bail bond, Kamran missed court dates, prompting the judge to summon Ekundayo to show cause.

    Last January 21, the prosecution told the court that Kamran had jumped bail.

    Prosecuting Counsel K. Sarumi told Justice Nicol-Clay that Kamran was believed to have fled abroad.
    Sarumi stated this following Ekundayo’s failure to produce the Briton for trial.

    Ekundayo’s counsel, Mrs O. Adeniyi, told Justice Nicol-Clay that her client was ill and had sent his eldest son to inform the court that he was on admission at a general hospital.

    But Sarumi opposed her.

    She said: “The defendant in the main case is a foreigner who was granted bail and ever since absconded, jumped bail. We have information that he has gone abroad.

    “The surety was brought to explain the defendant’s absence. The court directed him to produce the defendant. He isn’t here; there is no letter before the court. Instead, he sent his son.

    ‘I see it as a sign of disrespect to the court. The complainant is always here, he’s a traditional ruler and he has to travel from the East each time the matter comes up. So, I see no reason why the surety cannot be here.”

    She applied for a Bench Warrant against Ekundayo, following which Adeniyi tendered a medical report from a general hospital on her client’s behalf.

    Adeniyi prayed the court for an adjournment to give the surety time to recover from his ailment.

    She added: “This matter escalated the surety’s blood pressure. He and the foreigner met in a club and became good friends.”

    But the judge turned down her application.

    In a bench ruling, Justice Nicol-Clay held: “He has three options: produce the defendant, forfeit his bail bond or be ready to serve his time. The medical report says he is hypertensive. That shouldn’t stop him from appearing.”

  • Alleged bribery: Rickey Tarfa’s trial stalled again

    The trial of a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Rickey Tarfa, for alleged perversion of justice, failed to resume at a Lagos High Court in Igbosere on Monday, for the second time consecutively, following the judge’s absence.
    The Nation learnt that Justice Adedayo Akintoye was away on a conference, alongside several other judges in the Lagos State Judiciary.

    The trial will now resume on March 19.

    Last January 21, proceedings could not get underway following Tarfa’s absence without the court’s permission.
    His counsel, Abiodun Owonikoko SAN, told Justice Akintoye that his client had left the country for urgent medical attention.

    He said Tarfa’s condition “was so bad that he had to travel for surgical operations,” and would be away for three months.

    The three months elapsed on Monday.

    EFCC counsel Rotimi Oyedepo confirmed to the court that he received a medical report and a letter from Owonikoko on the issue.

    Oyedepo, however, wondered why the defendant did not seek leave of court before embarking on the trip.

    Justice Akintoye advised the defence to ensure that Tarfa was in court subsequently.

    She said: “I am giving the defendant the benefit of doubt based on the application before the court, he should be in court on the next adjourned date.”

    The court adjourned till Monday for continuation of trial.

    Tarfa was arraigned by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on March 9, 2016, on a 26-count charge of offering gratification to two judges of the Federal High Court – Justices Hyeladzira Nganjiwa and Mohammed Yunusa.

    He pleaded not guilty.

    The EFCC alleged that between June 27, 2012 and January 8, 2016, Tarfa paid N5.3 million in several tranches into Justice Nganjiwa’s account.

    He was also accused of paying N800,000 into Justice Yunusa’s account in three tranches between February 9 and November 30, 2015.

    Read Also: Alleged bribery: Court summons Rickey Tarfa’s witnesses

    The SAN was also accused of age falsification.

    Upon his arraignment on March 9, 2016 and subsequent re-arraignment on November 16, 2016, Tarfa pleaded not guilty and was granted bail on self recognizance.

    The EFCC has since closed its case, following which Tarfa opened his defence after the court dismissed his no-case submission he filed.

    The defendant’s first witness, Deputy Chief Registrar (DCR) of the Federal High Court in Lagos, Mr Bello Okandeji, is yet to finish his cross-examination.