The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Dasuki

  • Dasuki stalls trial in absentia

    •Ex-NSA files fresh application

    THE planned beginning of the trial of former National Security Adviser (NSA), Sambo Dasuki  in his absence was stalled yesterday, owing to a fresh application he filed, querying the propriety of the trial.

    Justice Ahmed Mohammed of the Federal High Court, Abuja had, on November 19, granted the prosecution’s prayer to do away with Dasuki’s presence since the ex-NSA has elected to stay away from the trial.

    Dasuki is standing trial on charges of money laundering and illegal possession of firearms, brought against him by the Federal Government, through the office of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF).

    The judge’s November 19 ruling was preceded by a letter by Dasuki, in which he requested the court to stop his prosecution on the grounds that the Federal Government has allegedly failed to obey orders made for his release on bail.

    The letter dated November 12, 2018, which he addressed to the Registrar of Court 5, was titled: “Re: Unabated persecution of Col. Mohammed Sambo Dasuki (rtd) by the Federal Government of Nigeria.”

    When the case was called yesterday, prosecuting lawyer Dipo Okpeseyi (SAN) indicated his readiness to proceed with the case, when defence lawyer, Adeola Adedipe, informed the judge about the fresh application filed by his client.

    Adedipe urged the court to set Dasuki’s fresh application down for hearing, in opposition to Okpeseyi’s request that the court should stick to the business of the day, as per the court’s ruling of November 19, in which it elected to proceed with trial, whether or not Dasuki was present.

    Ruling yesterday, Justice Mohammed elected to adjourn further proceedings to allow for the hearing of Dasuki’s fresh application.

    The judge noted that since the fresh application appears to be seeking to stop Okpeseyi from further prosecuting the case, it was incumbent on the court to determine the application before deciding whether or not to proceed with the trial.

    Justice Mohammed adjourned the hearing of the application to January 9 next year.

    In the application filed before the commencement of court’s proceedings, Dasuki is seeking, among others, “an order to adjourn sine die (indefinitely) the trial and/or further trial of the defendant in this case pending compliance by the complainant with this honourable court’s judgment per (delivered by) Hon. Justice Ijeoma L. Ojukwu on July 2, 2018.

    Justice Chukwu had, in the judgment, ordered Dasuki’s release on the grounds that his continued detention amounted to a violation of his fundamental right to liberty.

    Dasuki is contenting that by virtue of section 268(3) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, Okpesyi (SAN), a private legal practitioner, is required to prosecute this charge according to the directions of the Hon. Attorney-General of the Federation, particularly with respect to the aforementioned judgment, which is enforceable against him and all authorities.”

    He argued that “further prosecution” of the case by Okpeseyi “without compliance with the judgment by Justice Ojukwu, “will be contrary to the direction of the Attorney-General of the Federation, who is the chief law officer of the federation and a judgment debtor to the said judgment”.

    In the application signed by Ahmed Raji (SAN), Dasuki stated that the “application ought to be granted to preserve the integrity of the Bench and to avoid a constitutional breakdown.”

  • Dasuki, Diezani, Shema, Fayose houses top list of seized assets

    Owners of the  mansions seized by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) have been unveiled. They are former governors, ex-ministers, top military officers and businessmen.

    Leading the pack is a former Minister of Petroleum Resources, Mrs. Diezani Alison-Madueke, who has forfeited some prized assets. Lost to the Federal Government by the ex-Minister are a multi-storey building in Banana Island Foreshore Estate in Ikoyi, Lagos; a real estate comprising six flats in Ikoyi and an estate of 21 mixed housing in Yaba, Lagos.

    Many properties allegedly linked with Diezani have also been placed under interim forfeiture by the anti-graft commission. Also, the EFCC has secured the final seizure of Flat 7B at Osborne Towers in Ikoyi, Lagos where $43.45 million cash was recovered. The embattled former National Security Adviser, Col. Sambo Dasuki, has two properties in Kaduna and Abuja temporarily forfeited to the government.

    Also, a former Managing Director of PPMC, Haruna Momoh, who is overseas, loses two mansions in posh Maitama District to temporary forfeiture order.

    Some ex-governors  and former ministers whose assets have been placed under interim forfeiture are Ibrahim Shema(20); Ayodele Fayose (three); Babangida Aliyu (two); Bello Mohammed (ex-PDP National chairman) – one;  Iyorchia Ayu (one); Isa Yuguda(one) and Abba Moro(one).

    Others are ex-Managing Director of Platinum Multi-purpose Cooperative Society Limited Mr. Michael Osasogie Obasuyi, who bought 134 buses, 20 houses with N11.4billion slush cash.

    The highlights of the forfeited assets were contained in a document, which The Nation stumbled on.

    According to the Acting Chairman of EFCC, Mr. Ibrahim Magu, about 407 mansions were seized by the agency from 2015 to 2018.

    He said: “Hundreds of properties such as filling stations, petroleum products, land, jewellery, automobiles, real estate, vessels, hospitals, company shares and heavy machinery and broadcast equipment, have been seized from corrupt elements between 2015 and 2018.

    “From 2015 to 2018, 407 mansions were seized, 126 have been forfeited finally and 281 are under interim forfeiture.

    “Nine filling stations were seized and placed under interim forfeiture. Lands seized sums up to 98, of which 56 are under interim forfeiture while 42 have been forfeited finally to the Federal Government.”

    The document indicated that the EFCC is empowered by the law to place all suspicious assets under Interim Assets Forfeiture – in line with Sections 28 and 34 of the EFCC (Establishment Act) 2004 and Section 13(1) of the Federal High Court Act, 2004.

    Section 28 of the EFCC Act reads: “Where a person is arrested for an offence under this Act, the Commission shall immediately trace and attach all the assets and properties of the person acquired as a result of such economic or financial crime and shall thereafter cause to be obtained an interim attachment order from the Court.”

    Section 13 of the Federal High Court Act reads in part: “The Court may grant an injunction or appoint a receiver by an interlocutory order in all cases in which it appears to the Court to be just or convenient so to do.

    “Any such order may be made either unconditionally or on such terms and conditions as the Court thinks just.”

    On the forfeited assets, Magu said they had been handed over to the Federal Government for use by Ministries, Departments and Agencies.

    He said: “The ones (the assets) that have been forfeited finally to the Federal Government were those allocated to federal agencies to save cost because these government agencies spend a lot of money to rent properties.

    “We tried as much as possible to avoid recourse to the auctioning of these assets.  If you auction, you sell at peanuts. And the EFCC tried to distant itself from the auctioning of the forfeited properties. We have left the initiative of what to do with recovered assets to the Federal Government.

    “As a matter of fact, I am not interested in any property. To me, to get the work done is the most important.”

  • Dasuki asks court to excuse him from prosecution

    •Fed Govt applies to try ex-NSA in absentia

    FORMER National Security Adviser (NSA) Mohammed Dasuki has asked a Federal High Court to stop his prosecution on the ground that the Federal Government has allegedly failed to obey orders made for his release on bail.

    Dasuki’s request is contained in his personal letter, dated November 12, 2018, which he addressed to the Registrar of Court 5.

    He is standing trial before the court on charges of money laundering and illegal arms possession. The charges were brought against him by the office of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF).

    The letter, titled: “Re: Unabated persecution of Col. Mohammed Sambo Dasuki (retd) by the Federal Government of Nigeria,” was signed by the ex-NSA.

    Dasuki, in the letter, gave a brief profile of himself and detailed what he described as constituting his persecution by the Federal Government and its agency, the Department of State Services (DSS).

    He referred to five different orders for his release made, both by Nigerian courts and the Community Court of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), which he said the Federal Government failed to obey.

    Dasuki said: “The directive to continue detaining me, against the several orders of court and in brazen violation of the constitution, is wrongful and arbitrary. It has inflicted physical, emotional and psychological torture on my family and me.

    “The decision of the Federal Government of Nigeria is not only high-handed, it is also arbitrary and in violation of both domestic and international laws on human rights.

    “At this juncture, it will seem that the Nigerian Government is not inclined to yield or obey the orders of any court of law, whether domestic or international.

    “Ironically, the Federal Government still wants to ride on judicial wings to prosecute me, when it does not comply with the orders that proceed from the court, especially in relations to me.

    “At this point, I strongly believe that there must be an end to this hypocrisy and lopsided/ partisan rule of law.

    “Since the Federal Government has resolved not to comply with judicial orders directing my release, it is better for the court to also absolve me of the need to submit myself for further prosecution.

    “Justice should be evenly dispensed, as opposed to same, being, in favour of the Federal Government of Nigeria.”

    When the case came up yesterday before Justice Ahmed Mohammed, Dasuki was absent in court.

    His lawyer Victor Okwudiri drew the court’s attention to the letter by his client.

    Okwudiri said: “We were not aware of the letter until this morning when we got to court.

    “But what I could get from the letter when I rushed through it this morning, is that he is complaining about his plight in the custody of the DSS,” Okwudiri said.

    The prosecuting lawyer, Dipo Okpeseyi (SAN), said Dasuki informed DSS operatives keeping him that he would not come to court since he had sent a letter to the court.

    Okpeseyi added that although Dasuki could be compelled to attend court, the DSS operatives chose not to take such action to accord him some respect due to his status as a former NSA.

    The prosecuting lawyer argued that Dasuki’s decision not to attend court, but instead, chose to send a letter to the court, amounted to an affront to the court.

    He noted that Dasuki also failed to attend court on January 17 and April 10 this year.

    Relying on the provision of Section 352(4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, Okpeseyi, applied to the court to continue the trial of the former National Security Adviser in absentia.

    He urged the court to proceed with trial in Dasuki’s absence by directing the prosecution to call its witness, an application Okwudiri objected to.

    Ruling, Justice Mohammed noted that he had, in a ruling on April 10 this year, directed the prosecution to file an affidavit stating the facts whenever the defendant, on his own, decided not to appear in court.

    The judge said the affidavit must be filed to convince him that the defendant wilfully stayed away from court.

    Justice Mohammed noted that since the prosecution has failed to file an affidavit to also reflect the defendant’s absence yesterday, he would adjourn to a later date for the prosecution to comply.

    He adjourned to November 19.

     

  • Alleged N2.1bn money laundering: Direct your probe at Dasuki, Jonathan, Dokpesi tells court

    Businessman, Raymond Dokpesi, has faulted the money laundering charge brought against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

    Dokpesi queried the exclusion of ex-President Goodluck Jonathan from EFCC’s probe of the allegation that he (Dokpesi) and his firm, Daar Investment and Holdings Company Limited, were involved in the laundering of N2.1billion.

    The businessman, who is being tried with his firm, before the Federal High Court, Abuja also wondered why they were being prosecuted instead of the ex-National Security Adviser (NSA), Mohammed Dasuki, who is alleged to have laundered the money.

    Dokpesi’s argument is contained in a no-case submission adopted yesterday by his lawyer, Kanu Agabi (SAN).

    The case against Dokpesi and his firm, includes that they allegedly received N2.1b from the Office of the National Security Adviser, under Sambo Dasuki, as payment for a “purported contract on presidential media initiative”.

    They are also accused of receiving the N2.1b from ONSA to prosecute the 2015 presidential media campaign of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    Adopting the no-case submission yesterday, Agabi, an ex-Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), argued that the prosecution’s case against his clients and evidence led so far are replete with contradictions and inconsistencies.

    Agabi argued that the prosecution failed to call vital witnesses such as Dasuki or former President Goodluck Jonathan whom he said Dokpesi implicated in his statement.

    The ex-AGF  said, “The money was paid by Col. Dasuki. His name is mentioned in the four counts of money laundering as the one who made the payment.

    “Therefore, he is the one alleged to be laundering the funds. The money in counts one to four is not being laundered by the defendant. The launderer is Col. Dasuki.

    “So, if the launderer is Col. Dasuki, are we going to convict him behind him? We cannot convict him behind him.

    “Why is he not charged? His name is mentioned again and again in the charges.

    “Even if they are not going to charge him, they should have called him as a witness because it is his action that is in question here,” Agabi said

    ýHe equally noted that despite that Dokpesi implicated former President Jonathan, the anti-graft agency failed to interview him or call him as a witness.

    He said: “The 1st defendant (Dokpesi), in his statement, implicated the former President. Witnesses testified that they did not interview the former President

    “The rule of the court is that once the statement of the defendant (Dokpesi’s statement) is tendered by the prosecution it becomes the case of the prosecution,” Agabi said.

    He argued that the prosecution failed to disclose ingredients of money laundering in count one to four

    He contended that, for a transaction to constitute a money laundering offence, the money involved must be proceeds of crime.

    Agabi noted that, in the instant case, the money in the ONSA’s account with the Central Bank of Nigeria, from which his clients were paid, could not have been proceeds of crime.

    He argued that the prosecution failed to establish aprima facie case against his clients to warrant their being callled upon to enter defence.

    He argued that the charges were defective as they allegedly failed to disclose the ingredients of money laundering against his clients and were “riddled with inconsistencies from the head to the toes.”

    Agabi urged the court to dismiss the charge and discharge and acquit his clients.

    Responding, prosecuting lawyer, Oluwaleke Atolagbe urged the court to dismiss the no-case submission and order the defendants to enter their defence to the prosecution’s case.

    Atolagbe contended that the defendants’ submission, to the effect that Dokpesi should be held to account for any money laundering charge, was an admission that they committed the alleged crimes,

    He argued that all the ingredients of the alleged offences were proved by the prosecution and all the  necessary witnesses needed to prove the case were called.

    Atolagbe said the defence’s line of argument involving Dasuki’s roles was an admission that they committed the alleged crimes.

    He said for instance, the former Director of Finance and Administration of ONSA, Salisu Shuaibu, was called as the second prosecution witness.

    He noted that even though the charges before the case were not against Dasuki, the allegations of breach of trust, misappropriation and corruption levelled against the former NSA had been proved with the various witnesses called in the case.

    Atolagbe added: “They said prosecution must prove breach of trust against Col. Dasuki. Even if that must be an element of the offence of money laundering, the evidence is enough to prove it

    “PW2 (Shuaibu) gave a very elaborate evidence of how he was instructed to just make payments without contract or any relationship.

    “Dasuki is not standing trial here. We don’t need to prove charge against Col. Dasuki here. He is being tried in another court. Even if that is what is required, we have proven it.

    “This is also an admission on their part that there is money laundering, so they should enter their defence.”

    Atolagbe faulted Agabi’s claim that the prosecution’s evidence was riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies in the charges.

    He said: “That cannot also stand because money obtained in violation of the Public Procurement Act, as admitted by the defendant, certainly cannot be legitimate.”

    Atolagbe asked the court “to direct the defendants to enter their defence” or enable them call witnesses, such as Dasuki and Jonathan, that they argued the prosecution failed to call.

    Trial judge, Justice John Tsoho, adjourned to November 12 for ruling.

  • N2.1b laundering: Direct your probe at Dasuki, Jonathan – Dokpesi

    *Queries EFCC’s failure to question ex-President.
    *Court to rule Nov 12

     

    Businessman, Raymond Dokpesi has faulted the money laundering charge brought against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

    Dokpesi queried the exclusion of ex-President Goodluck Jonathan from EFCC’s probe of the allegation that he (Dokpesi) and his firm, Daar Investment and Holdings Company Limited were involved in the laundering of N2.1billion.

    The businessman, who is being tried with his firm, before the Federal High Court, Abuja also wondered why they were being prosecuted instead of the ex-National Security Adviser (NSA), Mohammed Dasuki, who is alleged to have laundered the money.

    Dokpesi’s argument is contained in a no-case submission adopted on Friday by his lawyer, Kanu Agabi (SAN).

    The case against Dokpesi and his firm, includes that they allegedly received N2.1b from the office of the National Security Adviser, under Sambo Dasuki, as payment for a “purported contract on presidential media initiative”.

    They are also accused of receiving the N2.1b from ONSA to prosecute the 2015 presidential media campaign of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    Adopting the no-case submission on Friday, Agabi, an ex-Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), argued that the prosecution’s case against his clients and evidence led so far are replete with contradictions and inconsistencies.

    Agabi argued that the prosecution failed to call vital witnesses such as Dasuki or former President Goodluck Jonathan whom he said his Dokpesi implicated in his statement.

    The ex-AGF said, “The money was paid by Col. Dasuki. His name is mentioned in the four counts of money laundering as the one who made the payment.

    “Therefore he is the one alleged to be laundering the funds. The money in counts one to four is not being laundered by the defendant. The launderer is Col. Dasuki.

    “So, if the launderer is Col. Dasuki, are we going to convict him behind him? We cannot convict him behind him.

    “Why is he not charged? His name is mentioned again and again in the charges.

    “Even if they are not going to charge him, they should have called him as a witness because it is his action that is in question here,” Agabi said

    ‎He equally noted that despite that Dokpesi implicated former President Jonathan, the anti-graft agency failed to interview him or call him as a witness.

    He said, “The 1st defendant (Dokpesi) in his statement implicated the former President. Witnesses testified that they did not interview the former President

    “The rules of the court is that once the statement of the defendant (Dokpesi’s statement) is tendered by the prosecution it becomes the case of the prosecution,” Agabi said.

    He argued that the prosecution failed to disclose ingredients of money laundering in count one to four.

    He contended that, for a transaction to constitute a money laundering offence, the money involved must be proceeds of crime.

    Agabi noted that, in the instant case, the money in the ONSA’s account with the Central Bank of Nigeria, from which his clients were paid, could not have been proceeds of crime.

    He argued that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against his clients to warrant their being called upon to enter defence.

    He argued that the charges were defective as they allegedly failed to disclose the ingredients of money laundering against his clients and were “riddled with inconsistencies from the head to the toes.”

    Agabi urged the court to dismiss the charge and discharge and acquit his clients.

    Responding, prosecuting lawyer, Oluwaleke Atolagbe urged the court to dismiss the no-case submission and order the defendants to enter their defence to the prosecution’s case.

    Atolagbe contended that the defendants’ submission, to the effect that Dokpesi should be held to account for any money laundering charge, was an admission that they committed the alleged crimes.

    Read Also: APC lambasts Ikpeazu’s car gifts to LG chairmen, Monarchs

    He argued that all the ingredients of the alleged offences were proved by the prosecution and all the necessary witnesses needed to prove the case were called.

    Atolagbe said the defence’s line of argument involving Dasuki’s roles was an admission that they committed the alleged crimes.

    He said for instance, the former Director of Finance and Administration of ONSA, Salisu Shuaibu, was called as the second prosecution witness.

    He noted that even though the charges before the case were not against Dasuki, the allegations of breach of trust, misappropriation and corruption leveled against the former NSA had been proved with the various witnesses called in the case.

    ‎Atolagbe added: “They said prosecution must prove breach of trust against Col. Dasuki. Even if that must be an element of the offence of money laundering, the evidence is enough to prove it

    “PW2 (Shuaibu) gave a very elaborate evidence of how he was instructed to just make payments without contract or any relationship.

    “Dasuki is not standing trial here. We don’t need to prove charge against Col. Dasuki here. He is being tried in another court. Even if that is what is required, we have proven it.

    “This is also an admission on their part that there is money laundering, so they should enter their defence.”

    Atolagbe faulted Agabi’s claim that the prosecution’s evidence was riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies in the charges.
    He said: “That cannot also stand, because money obtained in violation of Public Procurement Act, as admitted by the defendant, certainly cannot be legitimate.”

    Atolagbe asked the court “to direct the defendants to enter their defence” or enable them call witnesses, such as Dasuki and Jonathan, that they argued the prosecution failed to call.

    Trial judge, Justice John Tsoho adjourned to November 12 for ruling.

  • CORRUPTION TRAVEL BAN: Dasuki, Badeh, Daniel, Amosu, Yuguda, 45 others top travel ban list

    •Why presidency took action – top source
    •PDP, ex-Minister Fani-Kayode kick, fault ban

    A former National Security Adviser, Colonel Sambo Dasuki (rtd), 13 former governors and       seven ex- ministers have been barred from travelling out of the country under Executive Order 6 (EO6) issued yesterday by President Muhammadu Buhari.

    The restriction followed the judicial affirmation of the constitutionality and legality of the Executive Order 6 (EO6).

    The watch-list and restriction were put in place pending the conclusion of the cases against those affected.

    Also on the watch list seen last night by The Nation are: ex-governors Saminu Turaki (Jigawa), Murtala Nyako (Adamawa), Adebayo Alao-Akala (Oyo), Gabriel Suswam (Benue), Rasheed Ladoja (Oyo), Orji Uzor Kalu (Abia), Danjuma Goje (Gombe), Attahiru Bafarawa (Sokoto), Muazu Babangida Aliyu (Niger); Chimaroke Nnamani (Enugu); Sule Lamido (Jigawa); Gbenga Daniel (Ogun); and Ibrahim Shehu Shema (Katsina).

    The ex-ministers are Nenadi Usman, Bashir Yuguda, Jumoke Akinjide; Bala Mohammed; Abba Moro; Femi Fani-Kayode; and Ahmadu Fintiri.

    Others include a former Chief of Defence Staff, Air Marshal Alex Badeh; ex- Chief of Naval Staff, Vice Admiral A. D. Jibrin; a former Chief of Air Staff, Air Marshal Mohammed Dikko Umar; a former Inspector-General of Police, Sunday Ehindero; and a former Chief of Air Staff, Air Marshal Adesola Amosu; Chairman Emeritus of AIT/ Raypower, High Chief Raymond Dokpesi; Waripamowei  Dudafa (a former  Special Assistant (Domestic) to ex-President Goodluck Jonathan); a former Chief Judge of Enugu State, Justice Innocent Umezulike; a former judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia;

    Also on the list are a former National Publicity Secretary of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Olisa Metuh; Chief Jide Omokore; Ricky Tarfa; and Dele Belgore (SAN).

    Most of the affected persons are currently facing trial for alleged corrupt practices in different courts.

    The list was generated from cases and proceedings filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), the Nigeria Police, and 17 other agencies.

    The document indicated that many of those affected had earlier been placed on similar legal restrictions by the courts and security agencies including restriction of movement, seizure of passport, temporary forfeiture of assets, freezing of accounts and others.

    Explaining the government’s action in a statement yesterday, Senior Special Assistant to the President (Media & Publicity), Mallam Garba Shehu said:  “Following the instant judicial affirmation of the constitutionality and legality of the Executive Order 6 (EO6), President Muhammadu Buhari has mandated the Attorney-General of the Federation and the Minister of Justice to implement the Order in full force.

    “To this end, a number of enforcement procedures are currently in place by which the Nigeria Immigration Service and other security agencies have placed no fewer than 50 high profile persons directly affected by EO6 on watch-list and restricted them from leaving the country pending the determination of their cases.

    “Also, the financial transactions of these persons of interest are being monitored by the relevant agencies to ensure that the assets are not dissipated and such persons do not interfere with, nor howsoever corrupt the investigation and litigation processes.

    “It is instructive to note that EO6 was specifically directed to relevant law enforcement agencies to ensure that all assets within a minimum value of N50 million or equivalent, subject to investigation or litigation are protected from dissipation by employing all available lawful means, pending the final determination of any corruption-related matter.

    “The Buhari administration reassures all well-meaning and patriotic Nigerians of its commitment to the fight against corruption, in accordance with the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the general principles of the Rule of Law.

    “Accordingly, this administration will uphold the rule of law in all its actions and the right of citizens would be protected as guaranteed by the Constitution.

    “We, therefore, enjoin all Nigerians to cooperate with the law enforcement authorities towards ensuring a successful implementation of the Executive Order 6 which is a paradigm-changing policy of the Federal Government in the fight against corruption.”

    A top government official, who spoke in confidence, said there is no cause for alarm on E06.

    The source said: “The ban is not different from the conditions given by the court in granting these accused persons bail. The E06 is like a codification of steps to prevent those on trial for alleged corrupt practices from tampering with assets.

    “Some of these accused persons used to go to court for permission before they can travel out of the country. The E06 is not a new thing but instead of all agencies working at cross-purposes, a list was generated and backed with the Executive Order.

    “Some of those on trial, especially the Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs) had been selling their assets. What will they return after being convicted?”

    PDP rejects travel ban, says it’s prelude to full-blown fascism

    The opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) rejected the travel ban outright, dismissing it as an attempt by the Buhari administration to foist full-blown fascism on the country.

    Spokesman for  the PDP, Kola Ologbondiyan, said the travel restriction was illegal, draconian and targeted at members of opposition parties, perceived political enemies of President Muhammadu Buhari, well-meaning Nigerians, including members of the business community, religious leaders, former political leaders and traditional rulers, who are perceived to be averse to the President’s re-election bid.

    He said: “We hope this is not a ploy to harm certain eminent Nigerians on the claims of resisting travel restrictions.

    “The whole world can now see how fascism is fast taking over our democracy and judicial system and how the Buhari administration, by fiat, has directly ordered that citizens be secretly trailed, their movements and financial transactions restricted by government agencies, without recourse to due process of the law.

    “While the PDP notes that the Buhari Presidency has gone into panic mode since the popular emergence of Alhaji Atiku Abubakar as PDP Presidential candidate and the spontaneous jubilation his emergence has evoked across the country, the party maintains that the resort to total clamp down on the opposition and our supporters will be totally unacceptable.

    “What this means is that all Nigerians, particularly, opposition members, members of the business community and religious leaders, have become endangered and stand the risk of state violence under the All Progressives Congress (APC) administration.

    “The PDP therefore alerts the international community to hold the Buhari Presidency responsible should any harm befall any opposition leader, key members of the business community and religious leaders across the country as we march towards the 2019 general elections.”

    The PDP maintained that no amount of intimidation, harassment and foisting of fascism will deter Nigerians from their determination to rally on its platform to oust the APC from power next year.

    Fani-Kayode too

    One of the affected persons, Femi Fani-Kayode, described the ban as “utterly shameful and condemnable”.

    He alleged that the ban was targeted at members of the opposition.

    The ex-Minister of Aviation said: “The banning of 50 prominent Nigerians who are all members of the opposition from travelling out of the country by Buhari’s Executive Order and the power to confiscate their assets even though they have not been empowered to do so by a court of law or convicted of any offence is utterly shameful and condemnable.

    “It is nothing less than a descent into fascism and a violation of the fundamental human rights and civil liberties of the individuals that have been directly affected and the Nigerian people.

    “It is also a usurpation of the role of the Judiciary. Buhari is so desperate to remain in power that he has now resorted to attempting to muscle and intimidate the opposition. He forgets that he is not God and that he will soon leave power.

    “I condemn his lawless and desperate ways in the strongest terms. Only dictators behave in this way and Buhari has proved to be the most brutal and callous of them all in the history of our nation. I challenge him to do his worse and enjoy the short time that he has left in office. Sadists never last. Soon it will all be over and he will account for his evil ways and brought to justice.”

    List of affected persons

    S/N/   CASE NO/CHARGE NUMBER &  COURT OF TRIAL

    PARTIES

    NPF

    1          FHC/ABJ/CR/48/2017                               FRN VS GABRIEL SUSWAM &

    2 ORS

    2          FHC/ABJ/CR/115/2017                            FRN VS SOLOMON WOMBO &

    2 ORS

    3          FHC/MKD/CR/72/2017                             FRN VS ORAYEV

    AUGUSTINE AVAAN & 8 ORS

    4          FCT/ABJ/CR/129/2017                             IGP VS RICHARD GBANDE & 2 ORS

    5          FCT/ABJ/CR/128/2017                             IGP VS RICHARD GBANDE & ORS

    6          FHC/L/18C/2015                                        IGP VS MOSHOOD JUBRIL

    1. FHC/CA/3C/2018-FHC,

    CALABAR                                                    FRN VS PETER AGI & 1 OTHER

    8          FHC/L472C/2015                                       IGP VS OWOLABI OLUKUNLE &

    11 ORS

    9          FHC/L/376C/2015                                      IGP VIS BAKARE JELILI

    10       FHC/L/523C/2015                                      IGP VIS ADESA JIMOH & 2 ORS

    11       FHC/L317C/2015                                       IGP VS KAYODE MORUF & ORS

    12       FHC/L/286C/2015                                      IGP VS JAMIU AJANI & 2 ORS

    13       FHC/L144C/2016                                       IGP VS GANIYU SULAIMAN

    14       FHC/L/139C/2016                                      IGP VS SHOLOLA OMOLARA &

    2 ORS

    15       FHC/L/394C/2016                                      FRN VS BILLIAMINU ABDULLAHI &                                                               ORS

    16       FHC/L/456C/2016                                      IGP VS TUMBIRI EZEKIEL & 11 ORS

    17       FHC/ABJ/CR/117/2017                            FRN VS ILIYA JAMES & ORS

    18       FHC/ABJ/CR/89/2017                               FRN VS AYINDE THOMAS

    19       FHC/ABJ/CR/182/2017                            FRN VS CHIMA MIKE & ORS

    20       FHC/ABJ/CR/94/2017                               FRN VS LUCKY UDOBI & ORS

    21       FHC/ABJ/CR/98/2017                               FRN VS ISMAIL OGALA & 2 ORS

    22       FHC/ABJ/CR/41/2018                               FRN VS RITA ISAAC & 2 ORS

    23       FHC/ABJ/CR/41/2018                               FRN VS ALIYU UMAR & 3 ORS

    24       HIGH COURT OF

    LAGOS 16 & 24                                         STATE VS CHUKWUDUMEME

    ONWUAMADIKE “EVANS & 2 ORS’’

    25       CR/265/C/2017                                           HENRY CHIBUEZE

    AKA “VAMPIRE” & 5 ORS

    26       CR/90/2017                                                 STATE VS HON. NASIRU

    UMAR RONI & 5 ORS

    27       CMC/TUM/98CR/2017                              STATE VS SHANONO

    ALH. AHMED & OTHER

    28       I/75C 2016 HIGH

    COURT 5, IBADAN                                    C. O. P. VS MUHAMMED

    WELI & 1 OTHER

    29       I/137C/2017-HIGH

    COURT 16 IBADAN                                  C. O. P. VS ABDULLAHI

    GARUBA & 3 ORS

    30       I/211C/2017-HIGH

    COURT 18 IBADAN                                  C. O. P. VS DAHIRU

    MOHAMMED

    31       I/172C/2017 -HIGH

    COURT 17 IBADAN                                 C. O. P. VS JOSEPH

    UDOMA & 3 ORS

    32       I/184C/2017-HIGH

    COURT 19 IBADAN                                 C. O. P. OWOYOMI OKE & 1 OTHER

    33       I/49C/2016-HIGH

    COURT 5, IBADAN                                    C. O. P. VS KABIRU ALI & 2 ORS

    34       I/69C/2016-HIGH

    COURT 4, IBADAN                                    C. O. P. VS TUNED IBRAHIM &

    2 ORS

    35       I/132C/2017 -HIGH

    COURT 5, IBADAN                                    C. O. P. VS TUNED IBRAHIM &

    3 ORS

    36       MOG/03C/2017                                          C. O. P. VS MUTAIRU

    MOHAMMED & 2 ORS

    37       HOY/11C/2016                                           C. O. P. VS SEGUN OMOLADUN

    38       MI/31C/2016                                                C. O. P. VS MUSA SALEH & 4 ORS

    39       CR: 32/2016/MOG10C/2016                  STATE VS JAMIL UMAR & 6 ORS

    40       CR: 34/2016/MOG12C/2016                  STATE VS SUNDAY EDOREN & 3                                                                 ORS

    41       CR: 42/2016/MOG/11C/2016                 STATE VS GOODLUCK OGHENE

    & 4 ORS

    42       CR: 49/2016/MCI/12C/2016                    STATE VS OYIBO SHELL & 2 ORS

    43       STATE VS EFE REUBEN

    44       CR: 78/2016/MOG/44C/2016                 STATE VS GODSTIME

    EKWEREME & 2 ORS

    45       CR: 78/2016/MK/16C/2016                     STATE VS SMART

    ONOLOGBE & 1 OTHER

    46       CR: 81/2016/CMA/259C/2016               STATE VS REUBENOJOGWU & 2                                                                 ORS

    47       MAB/1064C/2017                                      C. O. P. CHINOYEN AGU & ORS

    48       KTX/06/2018-HIGH

    COURT KATSINA                                      C. O. P. VS IBRAHIM

    MU’AZU & 1 OTHER

    NAPTIP

    49       FHC/L/48C/2018-FEDERAL

    HIGH COURT LAGOS JUDICIAL

    DIVISION                                                      NIGERIA CUSTOMS SERVICE VS

    PROSSY NIGERIA LTD. & 6 ORS

    50       FHC/L/185C/2017 -FEDERAL

    HIGH COURT LAGOS JUDICIAL          DIVISION FEDERAL

    REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA VS

    HIZEC MARINE SERVICES LTD &

    4 ORS

    51       FHC/CA/CS/40/2017CALABAR

    JUDICIAL DIVISION                                  MAGGPIY TRADING TFZE VS NIGERIA

    CUSTOMS SERVICE BOARD &

    2 ORS

    ICPC

    52       HU/4C/2017- ABIA STATE

    HIGH COURT                                              FRN V. DR. PHILIPS NTO & 2 ORS

    53       FCT/HC/CR/92/12-

    COURT 10, APO  FCT                              FRN V. SUNDAY EHINDERO &

    JOHN OBANIYI

    54       ID/412C/13-COURT

    1, AWKA ANAMBRA STATE                 FRN V. EZEONWUKA INNOCENT

    55       KWS/56C/2016-KWARA STATE

    HIGH COURT                                              FRN V. DR. SA AD AYINLA

    ALANAMU & 2 ORS

    56       FHC/ABJ/CR/169/13-FED

    HIGH COURT 7, ABUJA                          FRN V. PROF. (SENATOR)

    DAVID IORNEM, & 2 ORS.

    57       FHC/EN/CR/72/15-FED.

    HIGH COURT 2, ENUGU                         FRN V. (1). PROF. E. ONYENEJE (2).

    1. LEONARD UGWU,

    (3). ELDER FREDRICK

    ONAH, (4). MR. BASIL OFFOR

    58       HU/38C/2016                                              FRN V. (1). COSMOS NDUKWE,

    (2). CONK PRODUCTION NIG. LTD.

    (3). CHIJIOKE OKONKWO

    59       HU/90C/2017-HIGH COURT

    4, UYO, AKWAIBOM                                FRN VS  EPHRAIM SUNDAY AKPAN

    60       PHC/888CR/2013-RIVERS

    STATE HIGH COURT

    4, SITTING IN

    PORTHARCOURT                                    FRN VS. ASO ADASA

    MORRISSON AND ORS.

    61       FCT/HC/CR/112/1-                                     FRN V. JOE EJE OKHIKU

    (FORMER ACTING

    DIRECTOR, NEWS AGENCY OF                                                                     NIGERIA)

    62       HCL/63C/2017-HIGH COURT

    OKENE KOGI STATE                              FRN V. ZACCAEUS ATTE

    63       MHC/73/2016- HIGH COURT

    MAKURDI, BENUE STATE                     FRN V. DONALD ANAGERIDE &                                                                     ANOR.

    64       K/ICPC02/2016                                          FRN V. RABIU T. WADA

    65       FHC/ABJ/CR/288/2015-

    FEDERAL HIGH COURT

    ABUJA                                                          FRN V. YEMI ARIS OLANIRE

    66       CR/136/2017- FCT

    HIGH COURT                                              FRN V. IBRAHIM HASSAN

    67       FHC/A1/59C/2013                                     FRN V. HENRY ALOR AND ANOR

    68       FCT/HC/CR/2014                                       FRN V. YUSUF AGABI & 3 ORS.

    69       KB/HC/27C/2017                                       FRN V (1) ALH. GARBA KAMBA

    (2) MOHAMMED TUNGA

    (3) ALH SAIDU DAKINGARI

    70       FCT/HC/CR/2003-FCT

    HIGH COURT 9                                         FRN V. MOHAMMED  ALI BALOGUN

    71       ZMS/GS/53C/2015                                    FRN V. SANI AHMED YERIMA &

    3 ORS.

    72       HU/36C/2015                                              FRN V. EZE BOB UBIARU

    73       CR/78/2014-COURT

    4, MAITAMA,FCT                                       FRN V.  VS. AMINU BELLO                                                                                SULEIMAN

    74       CR/136/15-FCT HIGH

    COURT, MAITAMA, COURT 4               FRN VS. ADEOLU ADEYANJU

    75       CR/276/2016-COURT 19, APO             FRN VS. MAJOR SAM

    76       HC/11C/2016-HIGH

    COURT 2, CALABAR                               FRN VS MICHAEL OKPO & 1 OTHER

    77       HC/65C/2016-CROSS

    RIVER STATE                                            FRN VS. DR. ITAM ABANG

    78       CR/287/2017 &

    CR/37/2018-FCT HIGH COURT

    NO 16 JABI & FEDERAL HIGH

    COURT NO. 10                                           FRN VS. ALIYU SANDA MAIMUNA

    79       PLD/J10C/2017-PLATEAU

    STATE HIGH COURT 5, JOS                 FRN VS. ISTIFANUS MWANSAT & 7 ORS

    80       CR/92/2018-COURT 37, ZUBA              FRN VS. DR. OBARO & 2 ORS

    EFCC

    81       FHC/ABJ/CR/181/2016                            FRN V AHMADU UMAR (ALIAS RT.

    HON. AMADU FINTIRI)

    82       FHC/ABJ/CR/148/2016                            FRN V EDIDIONG & ORS

    83       FHC/L/280C/16                                           FRN V. AIR MARSHAL AMOSU

    NUNAYO & 10 ORS

    84       FHC/ABJ/CR/121/2016                            FRN V OLAJIDE OMOKORE & 5 ORS.

    85       FHC/L/135C/2017                                      FRN VS. MUHAMMED

    DELE BELGOE SAN & ORS

    86       LD/2514C/16                                               FRN V. RICKY TARFA (SAN)

    87       LD/3671C/2016                                          FRN V HON. JUSTICE RITA NGOZI

    OFILI AJUMOGOBIA & ANOR

    88       FHC/IB/26C/2017                                       FRN VS OLOYE JUMOKE AKINJIDE & 2 ORS

    89       FHC/L/251C/16                                           FRN V NENADI ESTHER USMAN,

    FEMI FANI KAYODE & 2 ORS

    90       FHC/L/106C/2017                                      FRN V CHRISTIAN NWOSU AND ORS

    91       FHC/L/337C/16                                           FRN V WARIP AMOWEI

    EMMANUEL DUDAFA & ORS

    92       FHC/L/238C/2016                                      FRN V WARIP AMOWEI

    EMMANUEL DUDAFA & ANOR.

    93       FHC/L/31C/2016                                        FRN V PATRICK AKPOBOLOKEM & 11 ORS

    94       FHC/L/553C/2016                                      FRN V PATRICK AKPOBOLOKEM & 11 ORS

    95       FHC/511C/2016                                         FRN V PATRICK AKPOBOLOKEM & 6 ORS

    96       LD/217C/15                                                 FRN V PATRICK AKPOBOLOKEM,

    MAJOR GENERAL EMMANUEL

    ATEWE & ORS

    97       LD/218C/15                                                 FRN V PATRICK AKPOBOLOKEM & 6 ORS

    98       FHC/L/149/16                                              BABA JARUNA JAURO & 2 ORS

    99       FHC/L/148C/16                                           FRN V CALISTUS & 3 ORS

    100     FHC/GM/33C/2011                                    FRN V ALHAJI DANJUMA GOJE & 4 ORS

    101     HOS/34C/2017                                           FRN V PROFESSOR ANTHONY

    ELUJOBA, JOSEPHINE ADERONKE AKEREDOLU

    102     I/5EFCC/2011                                             FRB V OTUNBA ALAO-AKALA & ORS

    103     AK/4C/2017                                                 FRN V ADEBIYI G. DARAMOLA,

    EMMANUEL AYODEJI ORESEGUN

    104     AB/EFCC/03C/2016                                  FRN V SENATOR ADESEYE OGUNLEWE,

    PROF. OLUSOLA OYEOLE, MOSES

    OLUSOLA ILESANMI

    105     NSHC/EFCC/2C/2017                              FRN V DR. MAUZU BABANGIDA ALIYU ORS

    106     FHC/ABJ/CR/71/2017                               FRN V DR MUAZU BABANGIDA & ANOR

    107     FHC/ABJ/CR/43/2017                               FRN V ANDREW YAKUBU

    108     FHC/ABJ/CR/329/2015                            FRN V SULE LAMIDO & ORS.

    109     AB/EFCC/02/11                                          FRN V GBENGA DANIEL

    110     SS/33C/2009                                              FRN V ATTAHIRU BAFARAWA & ORS.

    111     FHC/ABJ/CR/297/2015                            FRN V STEPHEN ORONSANYE & ORS.

    112     FHC/ABJ/CR/82/2013                               FRN V DR. SANI TEIDI SHAIBU & ORS.

    113     FHC/09C/2007                                            FRN V CHIMAROKE NNAMANI & ORS.

    114     FHC/L/336C/08                                           FRN V RASHEED LADOJA

    115     FHC/ABJ/CR/389/2015                            FRN V BELLO ABBA MOHAMMED & ORS

    116     FHC/ABJ/CR/46/2016                               FRN V AIR CHIEF MARSHAL ALEX S.

    BADEH & IYALIKAM NIGERIA LTD

    117     FHC/ABJ/CR/362/2015                            FRN V GABRIEL SUSWAM & ANOR

    118     FHC/ABJ/CR/380/2015                            FRN V DR. RAYMOND DOKPESI & ANOR

    119     FCT/CR/42/2015                                        FRN V BASHIR YUGUDA & 5 ORS.

    120     FCT/CR/43/2015                                        FRN V COL. MOHAMMED

    SAMBO DASUKI & 4 ORS.

    123     EHC/74C/2017                                           FRN V INNOCENT AZUBIKE UMEZULIKE

    124     FHC/ABJ/CR/56/07                                    FRN V ORJI UZOR KALU & ORS.

    125     FHC/ABJ/CR/86/07                                    FRN V SAMINU TURAKI & ORS.

    126     FCT/CR/64/2012                                        FRN V ESAI DANGABAR & 7 ORS.

    127     FHC/LF/CR/34/2011                                  FRN V ALIYU AKWE DOMA & 2 ORS.

    128     FHC/ABJ/CR/293/2015                            FRN V MURTALA NYAKO & ORS.

    129     FHC/ABJ/CR/05/16                                    FRN V OLISA METUH & ANOR.

    130     FCT/HC/20/16                                             FRN V AIR VICE MARSHAL

    OLUTAYO OGUNTOYIBO

    131     FHC/ABJ/CR/92/2016                               FRN V AIR VICE MARSHAL

    MOHAMMED DIKKO UMAR

    132     CR/182/2016                                               FRN V AVM. ALKALI MOHAMMED MAMU

    133     FHC/ABJ/CR/113/2016                            FRN V ROBERT AZIBOLA & 2 ORS.

    134     FCT/CR/177/2017                                      FRN V SENATOR BALA MOHAMMED

    135     FHC/ABJ/CR/141/16                                 FRN V EMEKA MBA & ORS

    136     KTH/34C/2016                                            FRN V IBRAHIM SHEHU SHEMA & 3 ORS.

    137     FHC/ABJ/CR/186/2016                            FRN V AVM MARSHAL

    TONY OMENYI AND ANOR

    138     FHC/ABJ/CR/42/2016                               FRN V ABBA MORO & ORS

    139     FHC/ABJ/CR/224/2016                            FRN V ASHINZE & 8 ORS.

    140     CR/210/16                                                    FRN V VICE AD. JIBRIN & 3 ORS.

    141     FHC/ABJ/CR/142/16                                 FRN V OLUGBENGA OBADINA AND ANOR.

     

    NDLEA

    142     FCH/L65/18                                                 FRN V IGAN EGHEOSA

    143     FHC/244C/12                                              FRN V. ADEGBOYEGA AYOBAMI ADENIJI

    144     FHC/AWK/37C/2015 FHC/

    AWKA, ANAMBRA STATE                     FRN V IKEJIAKU SYLVESTER

    CHUKWUNWENDU & 3 ORS

    145     FHC/EN/CR/53/2015ENUGU,

    ENUGU STATE                                          FRN V EDDIE IFEANYICHUKWU

    DAYSON & 3 ORS

    146     FHC/AK/56C/2015-FHC AKURE,

    ONDO STATE                                            FRN V AUGUSTINE FRIDAY

    USIFO & ANOR

    147     FHC/L/519C/2015-FHC LAGOS            FRN V UBA HARRIS ALAEKWE & 13 ORS

    148     FHC/ASB/21C/2016                                  FHC V ANTHONY CHUKWUEMEKA

    UMOLU & 8 ORS (INCLUDING

    FOUR MEXICANS)

    149     FHC/L/232C/2016-FHC, LAGOS           FRN V JOHN VINCENT ARINZE

    150     FHC/AK/CS/60C/2017-FHC,

    AKURE, ONDO STATE                           EXPARTE APPLICATION

    (SUSPECT AT LARGE SINCE JAN. 2016)

    151     FHC/AK/34C/2017-FHC, AKURE,

    ONDO STATE                                            FRN V ESUABOM JOHNSON &

    ERIC AKINYIMIKA

    152     FHC/L/311C/2017-FHC, LAGOS           FRN V MUONEKE JOHNPAUL IFEANYI & 3 ORS

    153                                                                             FRN V OGBEGBU GOODLUCK & ORS

    154     FHC/L/483C/2017-FHC, LAGOS           FRN V EZE REMUGUS

    RAPURUCHUKWU & 4 ORS

    155                 FCH/L/235C/17                   FRN V ONOWU CHUKWUKA ISAAC

     

  • *Dasuki and presidency’s legal obfuscations(Subverting the rule of law)

    WHILE claiming to defend the constitution as well as asserting its irrevocable commitment to the rule of law, the Muhammadu Buhari presidency has repeatedly encouraged Nigerians not to resort to self-help but to let the courts settle their disputes. As a result, many Nigerians, despite their misgivings about the rule of law and the judiciary entirely, particularly the slow pace and high cost of justice, have little choice but to go to court to get redress. Five times the former National Security Adviser (NSA), Col Sambo Dasuki (retd.), asked the courts for bail; five times he was admitted to bail with stiff conditions; and one time he got redress from the largely perfunctory ECOWAS Court. But the government has refused to obey all court orders on the Dasuki case, effectively elevating the presidency above the law.

    The crimes alleged against the former NSA are undoubtedly egregious, crimes estimated by the government to have cost thousands of lives. However, despite the suspicions of the people, the crimes remain unproved. The Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Justice minister, Abubakar Malami, actually put the human cost at 100,000 lives. But the crime is bailable, and all the six courts which examined the arguments of the government still admitted the accused to bail. On what legal grounds, therefore, is the Buhari presidency ignoring the judgements? The AGF, according to a Premium Times report, finally provided the grounds for the government’s impunity. Hear him at length in an interview with the Hausa Service of the Voice of America (VOA): “What I want you to know is that issues concerning law and order under Muhammadu Buhari are sacrosanct and obeying court order is compulsory. However you should also know that there is a general consensus world over that where the dispute is only between individuals, then you can consider the issue based on the instant situation. But if the dispute is about an issue that affects an entire nation, then you have to remember that government is about the people not for only an individual.

    “So you have to look at it from this perspective. If the issue about an individual coincides with that which affects the people of a nation and you are now saying the government did not obey a court order that infringes on a single person’s rights. Remember we are talking about a person who was instrumental to the deaths of over one hundred thousand people. Are you saying that the rights of one person is more important than that of 100,000 who lost their lives?

    “Reports have shown that there was massive mismanagement of funds meant for military hardware which the military could not access and that led to the death of many, embezzlement of the fund and because of that many people have lost their lives. Obeying the court is not the issue per se. Are we going to take the issue of an individual more important than that of the people? The government’s main responsibility is for and about the people. The essence of governance is to better the lives of its people. So you have to weigh it based on that; the rights of an individual or the rights of the people.”

    It does not matter to the eminent Justice minister that when it comes to the issue of law, the government is in no position to arbitrarily determine what is right or wrong. It does not bother him that the president was, on the Dasuki matter, appropriating powers the constitution does not give the executive branch in terms of the final say on the freedoms of an accused. The AGF simply does not care that all the government’s arguments to deny Col Dasuki bail failed at the courts. All he cares about are assailing the public with frightening casualty figures entirely produced by the government, elevating the presidency’s preferences above the law and constitution, subjectively determining what is in the national interest or private interest, and lying about the government’s obedience of court orders.

    Mallam Malami is not just a Justice minister, he is a senior lawyer of many years’ standing, and will, it is expected, continue to be a lawyer after he leaves office. How his tendentious arguments about the government’s atrocious subversion of the rule of law do not offend him must speak to his innate inscrutability and short-sightedness. He abominably justifies what no legal mind of modest qualifications, let alone a senior advocate, should ever try to justify. And he has forgotten, apparently, that his statements and the judicial policies of the government he serves will outlast their time in office. If the presidency cannot comprehend the law, nor appreciate the implications of subverting the law, surely Mallam Malami would be expected to educate his employers, if he has the courage and character.

    By his admission, the Justice minister is saying that the Dasuki matter is no longer a question of the constitution or the law; it is a personal, probably vindictive, thing. He has indicated that the Buhari presidency reserves the right to determine what is a question of the law, and what is not. Worse, he is suggesting that whatever the government he serves does, regardless of the unlawfulness of their actions, must not be questioned by anyone, not even the courts. Mallam Malami and his employers, Nigerians must now know, are officially not just above the law, they are the law.

     

    *First published July 22, 2018, as a short treatise on the Justice minister’s disingenuous and untenable arguments to destroy the basis of the rule of law. Weeks later, President Buhari appropriated the same weak arguments before the country’s association of lawyers

  • Dasuki and Nigeria’s descent into anarchy

    SIR: Col Sambo Dasuki, rtd, was recently granted bail by an Abuja Federal High Court to the tune of N200m. As stringent as that bail condition was, Dasuki has been able to meet it, and as expected in a society where the rule of law is respected, he was expected to be allowed to go home while his trial continues until the case against him is concluded one way or the other.

    Unfortunately, even after meeting his bail conditions, the federal government has refused to allow him go home.  More unfortunate is the fact that the man who advanced reasons why the federal government cannot obey the court rulings on Dasuki’s bail, Abubakar Malami, is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN.

    That the federal government would continuously disobey court rulings granting Dasuki bail including even the one by the ECOWAS court of which Nigeria is a prominent member is worrisome. Six times has Dasuki been granted bail, and six times has the government deliberately refused to comply with the court rulings.

    There is nothing more dangerous to the corporate existence of a nation than this: when citizens are forced to resort to self-help because they feel the judiciary can no longer give judgements that would be obeyed by parties.

    In advancing reasons for federal government refusal to comply with Dasuki’s bail rulings, Malami had claimed that it was done in the public interest. Hear him: “So, you have to look at it from this perspective. If the issue about an individual coincides with that, which affects the people of a country and you are now saying the government did not obey a court order that infringes on a single person’s rights. Remember, we are talking about a person who was instrumental to the deaths of over 100,000 people. Are you saying that the rights of one person are more important than that of 100,000 who lost their lives?”

    The law is not about the opinions and feelings of men; it is about the position of the constitution which is the guiding document for all citizens irrespective of class or social status or political office. When men begin to elevate themselves over and above our laws, our constitution and the judiciary, we descend speedily into a state of anomie and ochlocracy. There is no way Malami, despite being a SAN, can conduct himself in a manner as one who knows it all better than Justices Ademola Adeniyi and Justice Ahmed Mohammed of the Federal High Court, Abuja and Justice Hussein Baba-Yusuf and Peter Affen of the FCT High courts; the ECOWAS Court of Justice, and lately, Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu who all, in their judicial eminence, granted Dasuki bail. As stringent as these bail conditions had been, Dasuki had always perfected them only for the self-ordained omnipotent government of President Buhari to thwart it!

    While Malami has conveniently found reasons to continue the illegal detention of Dasuki, saying it was because he caused about 100,000 deaths, one wonders what the government Malami serves has done about the thousands of other Nigerians who are almost daily being wasted in an orgy of violence orchestrated by criminal gangsters operating under the global tag of herdsmen terrorists throughout regions of the federation?

    We are indeed back to the dark ages where the rule of law is supplanted with the rule of might and brute force with reckless abandon by agents of government. As it is with the judiciary, so it is, and even worse, with our legislature whose summons, motions and resolutions have been freely flouted and ignored by the executive, thereby completing the cycle of ridicule and humiliation of our democratic institutions. Like Ayn Rand said, we are getting to that stage where citizens can only act by the permission of the executive. That stage is the darkest period of human history and history will never be kind to those who brought us there.

    Dasuki should be allowed to go home as directed by courts of competent jurisdiction. After all, he is still a citizen of the Federal Republic of Nigeria who is presumed innocent until proven guilty and must suffer the full consequences of his actions if eventually found guilty by the courts. But for now, the multiple court rulings granting him bail must be respected or we continue in our free fall into anarchy as a nation!

     

    • Jude Ndukwe, jrndukwe@yahoo.co.uk

  • Dasuki and presidency’s legal obfuscations

    WHILE claiming to defend the constitution as well as asserting its irrevocable commitment to the rule of law, the Muhammadu Buhari presidency has repeatedly encouraged Nigerians not to resort to self-help but to let the courts settle their disputes. As a result, many Nigerians, despite their misgivings about the rule of law and the judiciary entirely, particularly the slow pace and high cost of justice, have little choice but to go to court to get redress. Five times the former National Security Adviser (NSA), Col Sambo Dasuki (retd.), asked the courts for bail; five times he was admitted to bail with stiff conditions; and one time he got redress from the largely perfunctory ECOWAS Court. But the government has refused to obey all court orders on the Dasuki case, effectively elevating the presidency above the law.

    The crimes alleged against the former NSA are undoubtedly egregious, crimes estimated by the government to have cost thousands of lives. However, despite the suspicions of the people, the crimes remain unproved. The Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Justice minister, Abubakar Malami, actually put the human cost at 100,000 lives. But the crime is bailable, and all the six courts which examined the arguments of the government still admitted the accused to bail. On what legal grounds, therefore, is the Buhari presidency ignoring the judgements? The AGF, according to a Premium Times report, finally provided the grounds for the government’s impunity. Hear him at length in an interview with the Hausa Service of the Voice of America (VOA): “What I want you to know is that issues concerning law and order under Muhammadu Buhari are sacrosanct and obeying court order is compulsory. However you should also know that there is a general consensus world over that where the dispute is only between individuals, then you can consider the issue based on the instant situation. But if the dispute is about an issue that affects an entire nation, then you have to remember that government is about the people not for only an individual.

    “So you have to look at it from this perspective. If the issue about an individual coincides with that which affects the people of a nation and you are now saying the government did not obey a court order that infringes on a single person’s rights. Remember we are talking about a person who was instrumental to the deaths of over one hundred thousand people. Are you saying that the rights of one person is more important than that of 100,000 who lost their lives?

    “Reports have shown that there was massive mismanagement of funds meant for military hardware which the military could not access and that led to the death of many, embezzlement of the fund and because of that many people have lost their lives. Obeying the court is not the issue per se. Are we going to take the issue of an individual more important than that of the people? The government’s main responsibility is for and about the people. The essence of governance is to better the lives of its people. So you have to weigh it based on that; the rights of an individual or the rights of the people.”

    It does not matter to the eminent Justice minister that when it comes to the issue of law, the government is in no position to arbitrarily determine what is right or wrong. It does not bother him that the president was, on the Dasuki matter, appropriating powers the constitution does not give the executive branch in terms of the final say on the freedoms of an accused. The AGF simply does not care that all the government’s arguments to deny Col Dasuki bail failed at the courts. All he cares about are assailing the public with frightening casualty figures entirely produced by the government, elevating the presidency’s preferences above the law and constitution, subjectively determining what is in the national interest or private interest, and lying about the government’s obedience of court orders.

    Mallam Malami is not just a Justice minister, he is a senior lawyer of many years’ standing, and will, it is expected, continue to be a lawyer after he leaves office. How his tendentious arguments about the government’s atrocious subversion of the rule of law do not offend him must speak to his innate inscrutability and short-sightedness. He abominably justifies what no legal mind of modest qualifications, let alone a senior advocate, should ever try to justify. And he has forgotten, apparently, that his statements and the judicial policies of the government he serves will outlast their time in office. If the presidency cannot comprehend the law, nor appreciate the implications of subverting the law, surely Mallam Malami would be expected to educate his employers, if he has the courage and character.

    By his admission, the Justice minister is saying that the Dasuki matter is no longer a question of the constitution or the law; it is a personal, probably vindictive, thing. He has indicated that the Buhari presidency reserves the right to determine what is a question of the law, and what is not. Worse, he is suggesting that whatever the government he serves does, regardless of the unlawfulness of their actions, must not be questioned by anyone, not even the courts. Mallam Malami and his employers, Nigerians must now know, are officially not just above the law, they are the law.

  • Court serves Dasuki’s release order on DSS

    •Family, associates await ex-NSA’s freedom

    A FEDERAL High Court in Abuja has formally served an order to release ex-National Security Adviser (NSA) Col. Sambo Dasuki (retd) on bail on the Director General of Department of State Services (DSS) and the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice.

    Dasuki’s counsel Mr. Ahmed Raji (SAN) confirmed yesterday that the bail conditions of his client have been fulfilled and the ex-NSA’s family and associates are awaiting a positive response from  the Federal Government and the DSS.

    Raji said: “I am pleading and begging the Federal Government and DSS in the name of God Almighty to please comply with court order on my client Col. Sambo Dasuki. We have served them with the court order and in the interest of justice and rule of law, I am begging this government, being a democratic government, to please respect the rule of law on Dasuki.”

    Family members, friends, associates and well-wishers of Dasuki yesterday stormed his Abuja residence in anticipation of his final release from the DSS’ detention, where he has been held by the Federal Government since December 29, 2015.

    The court, on July 2, granted Dasuki conditional bail, which he had perfected fully yesterday through his two sureties, who are standing for his freedom as ordered by Justice Ijeoma Ojuku.

    Although the sureties had anticipated that the detained ex-NSA would be handed over to them, sources, however, said the DSS boss might need to contact the Presidency before finally handing over Dasuki to the sureties in compliance with the judgment of the Federal High Court.

    The warrant of release dated July 16, 2018, titled: “Verification of Bail Conditions” and signed by Deputy Chief Registrar, Federal High Court Abuja, Mr. Mba Nkem A. Omotosho, was served on the DSS Headquarters and the Office of Minister of Justice in Abuja.

    The warrant of release read in part: “Pursuant to the judgment order made on Monday, the 2nd day of July 2018, granted by His Lordship, Hon Justice Ijeoma L. Ojukwu, directing various conditions to be fulfilled prior to the release on bail of the applicant (Col. Sambo Dasuki (retd).

    “I have scrupulously verified the entire conditions of bail as ordered by his lordship and the three ambits are fulfilled.

    “Hence, the respondents, the Director-General, State Security Services, and Attorney General of the Federation, are hereby notified as directed by His Lordship for the subsequent compliance of same.

    “Attached herewith is the enrolled Order of the court and all the necessary bail documents for your perusal and aggrandisement,” it concluded.

    Before the latest judgment by Justice Ojukwu, Dasuki had previously perfected bails granted him by four different judges of high courts, including Justices Ademola Adeniyi and Justice Ahmed Mohammed of the Federal High Court and Justices Hussein Baba-Yusuf and Peter Affen of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Courts.

    The ECOWAS Court of Justice had also ordered his immediate release from detention.

     

    He ’ll be released on bail soon, says Presidency source

    INDICATIONS emerged yesterday night that formal National Security Adviser (NSA) Sambo Dasuki will soon be released on bail.

    A Presidential source said Dasuki would be released on bail if he meets the bail conditions set by the court.

    “We have confirmation from the DSS that Col. Sambo Dasuki (retd) will be allowed to go on bail if he meets the conditions set for him by the court.” the source simply stated.

    Dasuki has been on trial since December 2015 over missing billions of dollars in his involvement in the procurement of arms and equipment in the Armed Forces and Defence sector from 2007 to early 2015.

    The executive arm of government has been severally criticised for not obeying court orders for his release. Senators last week added their voices by accusing the Federal Government of human right abuses.

    President Buhari, based on Interim Report of Investigative Committee on Arms Procurement, had in 2015 ordered arrest of Dasuki and other indicted persons.

     

    The statement then issued by the Special Adviser on Media and publicity, Femi Adesina, had read “On the authority of Mr. President, a 13 man committee was set up by the Office of the National Security Adviser to audit the procurement of arms and equipment in the Armed Forces and Defence sector from 2007 to date.

    “While the committee, which was inaugurated on 31 August 2015, is yet to complete its work, its interim report has unearthed several illicit and fraudulent financial transactions.”