Tag: Dasuki

THE absence of ex-National Security Adviser (NSA) Sambo Dasuki in the alleged corruption case against him and five others stalled trial yesterday.

Department of State Services (DSS), which is detaining Dasuki, only brought the ex-NSA to court 30 minutes after the case was adjourned.

 Dasuki; ex-Minister of State for Finance Bashir Yuguda; ex-Finance director at the Office of the NSA Shuaibu Salisu, ex-Governor of Sokoto State Attahiru Bafarawa; his son Sagir; and their company, Dalhatu Investment Limited, are being tried for allegedly stealing N9.2 billion from the Office of the NSA.

They were arraigned late last year before Justice Peter Affen of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in Maitama, Abuja, on a 22-count filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

Trial was expected to commence yesterday, but proceedings were stalled owing to the absence of the second defendant (Dasuki) in court.

Yesterday, Dasuki’s lawyer Joseph Daudu (SAN) noted that his client was not in court, prompting the court to enquire from prosecution lawyer Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) why the ex-NSA was absent.

Jacobs said he was surprised Dasuki was not in court. He said his witnesses were ready for trial.

He said the DSS, and was assured Dasuki would be produced in court later.

Jacobs applied for a stand-down of proceedings, to allow the DSS produce the 2nd defendant, an application the defence objected to.

The defence team, including Daudu, Olajide Ayodele (SAN), Akin Olujinmi (SAN), J. O. Olatoke (SAN), Joshua Olatoke (SAN) and Hakeem Afolabi (SAN), argued that it was wrong for Jacob to seek a stand-down without indicating how long.

Daudu also told the court the trial might not have held had Dasuki been in court following a pending motion by his client.

By the consent of all lawyers,  the judge adjourned the case to October 21.

Following his detention in the past six months over $2.1billion arms deals, a former National Security Adviser, Col. Sambo Dasuki, yesterday filed a N15billion suit against the Department of the State Security Service (DSS), the National Security Adviser (NSA), the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

Also, the Dasuki family yesterday pleaded for bail for the ex-NSA, alleging that his health has deteriorated.

The ex-NSA initiated the latest action based on the enforcement of his fundamental human rights as enshrined in Section 46 of the 1999 Constitution.

The suit, which will be heard in the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), is yet to be assigned to any judge.

But the Originating Motion was obtained exclusively yesterday by our correspondent.

Although Dasuki was able to meet all the bail conditions granted him by an FCT High Court on December 28, 2015, he was rearrested on December 29 and kept in the custody of the DSS and NSA.

It was, however, learnt that Dasuki is being detained based on “security reasons”.

A top source said: “Going by the sensitive nature of the office he had occupied in the past, the suspect is being kept in safe custody for security reasons.

“Also, the investigation into the arms deals and procurement contracts in the Armed Forces has not been concluded. Initially, it was $2.1billion, but recent findings have confirmed that the alleged fraud was over $15billion.

“I can assure you that Dasuki is being detained in what I can describe as a home away from home.

“He is allowed access to his family, medication and his health is not under any threat whatsoever.”

In his latest application before the court by his counsel, J.B. Daudu (SAN), Ahmed Raji (SAN) and seven others, Dasuki sought the following reliefs:

• An order against the respondents jointly and/or severally for the enforcement of the applicant’s fundamental rights.
• A declaration that the applicant is entitled to his rights to dignity of human person, personal liberty, fair hearing, freedom of movement, private and family life, and to acquire and own property as enshrined under the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
• A declaration that the arrest and continuous detention of the applicant since the 29th day of December 2015, in the 1st and 2nd respondents’ custody by officers and men of the respondents, without allowing the applicant access to his medical personnel, members of his family, and without charging the applicant to any court of competent jurisdiction within the time permitted by law, is wrongful, unlawful, unconstitutional and violation of the applicant’s rights as enshrined in the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
• An order of this honourable court compelling the respondents to release the applicant forthwith (conditionally or unconditionally)
• An order of this honourable court compelling the respondents jointly and/or severally to tender a public apology to the applicant, to be published in two (2) national daily newspapers, for the violation of the applicant’s right as enshrined under the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
• An order of this honourable court compelling the respondents jointly and/or severally to pay the applicant the sum of N15billion only as general damages and compensation for his illegal detention and incarceration in violation of his rights enshrined in the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,  1999 (as amended).
• And such further order(s) as this honourable court may deem fit to make in the circumstances and in terms of the reliefs sought in the statement accompanying the affidavit in support of this application.

In an affidavit by Abubakar Dasuki, he said the continued detention of the over 60-year old ex-NSA has denied him an opportunity to attend to his “debilitating health.”

The affidavit reads: “Part of the efforts made by the applicant to secure his freedom was to file applications in three courts, complaining of the respondents’’ disobedience of court orders.

“I know as a fact that the three courts in separate rulings were of the view that the applicant should apply for the enforcement of his fundamental human rights, given the peculiar circumstances of the case. Now shown to me are the rulings of the Hon. Justice A. Ademola in charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/319/15, the Ruling of the Hon. Justice Baba Yusuf in Charge No. FCT/HC/CR/43/2015 and the Ruling on Hon. Justice Peter Affen in Charge No. FCT/HC/CR/42/2015, attached and marked ‘Exhibit DASUKI 11a, 11b, 11c,’ respectively.

“The applicant’s family is seriously worried and troubled about the condition of the applicant’s detention and more worrisome is the fact that the applicant’s state of health has deteriorated significantly, the applicant having not been able to attend to his medical needs since 3rd November, 2015, when the order allowing him to so do was granted.

“The applicant’s family’s concern and apprehension became compounded recently when General Muhammadu Buhari (rtd), the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, in his maiden presidential media chat on the 30th day of December 2015, said that the applicant will not be released because, according to the president, the weight of crimes allegedly committed by the applicant against the Nigerian state are such that if the applicant is allowed to enjoy any form of freedom, he is likely to jump bail. Certified true copies of the newspaper reports of the said president’s statement are attached and marked ‘Exhibit DASUKI 12a – 12h’.

“The apprehension of the applicant and members of his family has been confirmed by President Buhari’s statement that the human rights of the applicant will continually be violated and that the order of the courts for the release of the applicant will not be honoured by the respondents.

“The applicant’s arrest, detention and continued detention is wrongful and arbitrary. It has inflicted physical, emotional and psychological torture on the applicant.

“I know that except this court comes to his rescue and protect him by ordering his immediate release, the applicant will continue to be subjected to humiliation, pain and health risks, which may cause his life to be exterminated.

“If the respondents and their agents are not restrained, the applicant’s rights to life, human dignity, personal liberty, privacy, family life, freedom of movement, and right to own properties, which have been impaired and violated by the respondents, will continue to be impaired and put in jeopardy.

“The applicant lives in fear everyday as he is kept by agents of the 1st and 2nd respondents, which said respondents consider him to be an enemy.

“The applicant is still being kept by the 1st and 2nd respondents in solitary confinement.

“The applicant’s detention has impaired his ability to perform his role as the head of his house i.e. provide for his family.”

Former National Security Adviser (NSA) Col. Sambo Dasuki (retd) has protested his detention for alleged $15billion arms deals facilitated by the Office of National Security Adviser (ONSA).

 He says the Federal Government should allow his trial  to begin, The Nation learnt yesterday.

Dasuki is said to have told his associates that he is not disposed to a secret trial.

 He insists that based on service rules in a security system, he only obeyed the directive of the President and Commander-in-Chief,  former President Goodluck Jonathan.

 The ex-NSA, The Nation learnt,  told his associates: “I am ready for trial because they have destroyed my family’s name and my professional integrity, especially how we successfully fought Boko Haram and recovered major towns and cities, not villages. They should let my trial start in earnest to enable Nigerians know the truth from falsehood.

 There is a plan to try Dasuki’s case in secret to protect some of the witnesses. But Dasuki disagreed.

He said: ”I don’t believe in secret trial and there is no basis for it because the government has filed all necessary papers in court and attached the list of witnesses. Since the witnesses have become public knowledge, there is no basis for secret trial.’

 Dasuki also queried the rationale for keeping him in custody “without any warrant”.

 He said: “Since I was detained in the custody of the Department of State Service (DSS), I have not been shown any warrant to this effect or court order.

 ”I deserve to be shown the warrant of detention by DSS and the purpose for restricting me to house arrest. My detention is unlawful.”

 He urged Nigerians to prevail on the government to admit him to bail in line with the present administration’s commitment to the Rule of Law.

 Dasuki said: “All those who collected funds from ONSA have been granted bail but I am still in custody. I have been granted bail on all the cases filed against me by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), and even DSS, but I have not been released.

 ”If all the beneficiaries of the so-called funds are on bail, what have I done wrong?  Nigerians should help prevail on the government to grant me bail.

 ”I cannot rock the boat. I am prepared for trial. We did everything with national and security interest.”

Dasuki stressed that he disbursed all the funds credited to ONSA based on the directive of ex-President Goodluck Jonathan.

 ”Based on the service rules in the security circle, I owe it a duty to obey the President and Commander-In-Chief. Ex-President Jonathan approved all the expenses incurred by ONSA.

 ”I am ready to prove in court how we complied with the directive of the ex-President.”

Dasuki was initially arrested by the DSS but EFCC took custody of him for trial.

But he was later returned to DSS facility from where he had been going to various courts.

 The EFCC had arraigned Dasuki, and two others on 19-count charge of misappropriation of funds meant for purchase of arms before a Federal Capital Territory High Court in Maitama, Abuja.

A key witness in the trial of former National Security Adviser (NSA), Sambo Dasuki, before the Federal High Court, Abuja has been involved in an accident and suffered multiple fractures and injuries.

Lead prosecution lawyer in Dasuki’s trial for alleged illegal arms possession and money laundering, Oladipo Okpeseyi (SAN), made this public at the resumed hearing in the case yesterday.

The prosecution said the witnesses, who are mostly serving security personnel, would be exposed to danger if their identities were unduly exposed to the public

“The need for this application is now more serious in view of the fact that one of our principal witnesses, as we speak, was involved in a serious accident, with multiple fractures and injuries. In as much as we are not alluding that the defence has anything to do with the accident, it further heightens the need to have this witnesses protected,” Okpeseiyi said while praying the court to grant permission to shield its remaining witnesses in the case.

“Because of the peculiar nature of loyalty in the military, some mistake loyalty to the state for loyalty to persons. By virtue of the office hitherto held by the defendant, the witnesses were once his staff. We believe that any person, who is giving evident in court anywhere in the world, is the witness of the court, because he/she is to help the court reach just decision.

“In this regard, we say the issue of witness protection is what the court can order suo motu (on its own). We have brought this application for this seemingly harmless order to protect these witnesses. This application is intended to protect these witnesses, their families and career. This issue of denial of fair hearing does not arise because the application is not seeking to preclude the defence from seeing and cross-examining the witnesses.” Defence lawyer Joseph Daudu (SAN) opposed the application and urged the court to refuse it. He argued that since the court had refused a similar application before now, the only option opened to the prosecution was to appeal the court’s earlier ruling, dismissing the application.

Daudu said: “It is crystal clear that the defendant (Dasuki)is being punished by the powers that be for the offences committed long before now. We leave them to the Almighty God for his ultimate judgment.”

ustice Adeniyi Ademola adjourned to September 13 for ruling and continuation of trial.

The Court of Appeal in Abuja yesterday okayed the continued detention of former National Security Adviser (NSA), Sambo Dasuki, and held that his re-arrest after he was released from prison custody on December 29, 2015, was not a violation of any existing order.

The appellate court gave its decision in a judgement delivered yesterday by a panel of five Justices led by Justice Abdul Aboki. The judgment was on one of the two appeals by Dasuki against the earlier rulings by Justices Husein Baba Yusuf (of the High Court of the Federal Capital territory (FCT), Abuja and Adeniyi Ademola (of the Federal High Court, Abuja).

Both judges had held that the decision of the Department of State Services (DSS) to re-arrest Dasuki after he was released by the authority of the Kuje prison, upon meeting the conditions of bail granted him by the three judges before who he is standing trial, was not a violation of any existing orders.

Dasuki, through his lawyer, Joseph Duadu, appealed the decisions of both judges, arguing that his continued detention was a violation of the orders releasing him on bail and a breach of his right to freedom of movement.

The Court of Appeal, in a unanimous decision, but with the lead judgment read by Justice Aboki, held that Dasuki’s appeal was incompetent and dismissed it.

The court resolved the sole issue, it raised for determination, against Dasuki. The issue was: “Whether the trial judge was not right in dismissing the appellant’s application seeking to stop the prosecution from further prosecuting the charge against the appellant before the lower court on the ground that the prosecution was in breach of the order admitting the appellant to bail pending appeal.”

The court noticed that Dasuki was, after his arraignment, detained in Kuje prison and when he perfected his bail, was released on December 29, 2015 from the prison by the Controller of Prisons.

It further noted that the warrant of release was directed, by the court, at the Controller of Prisons. There was no controversy about this.

“Once the appellant was released from prison on December 29, 2015 the order of court, admitting him to bail and releasing him from prison, where he was detained, has been complied with.

“The order was not complied with by the EFCC as it was not the subject and it was not directed at it.  For this reason, it is fallacious to argue that the EFCC did not comply or had disobeyed the court order for bail. The order was discharged by another agency of government – the Controller of Prisons.

“The power to punish for disobedience to court order is quasi-criminal, and by Section 36(9) of the 1999 Constitution, no person is guilty of any act or omission that was not an offence at the time it was committed. In the instant appeal, the trial judge in his ruling, giving right to this appeal, said he did not make any order against Dasuki’s re-arrest,” the court said.

The court was of the view that since there was no order made against Dasuki’s re-arrest, there cannot be a disobedience of a subsisting order of the court whether by the EFCC or DSS.

“Apart from the existence of an order, it must be shown that the order was served on the alleged contemnor. Here, the trial judge found that there was no service of Form 48 on the DSS.

“The failure to serve the order is fatal to the proceedings as disobedience could not have been established. Since the DSS was not served with the order of the court and Form 48, they could not know the order of court the allegedly disobeyed,” the court further said.

It said the appellant (Dasuki) ought to have established that terms of the court order were clear and unambiguous, and that the respondents have proper notice of the order. It added that if any of these ingredients is missing, it would be impossible to prove a charge of disobedience of court order.

“The order was clear, but it did not prevent re-arrest. The order was not served on DSS and, in effect, the EFCC. I need to point out also that the disobedience to court order, as contended, is an indication of crime, and so, the onus is always on the appellant, who alleges offence to prove that not only is there offence, but it was actually the EFCC or any other body that actually committed it.

“The EFCC did not re-arrest the appellant, as found by the trial judge. The DSS that allegedly re-arrested him has not been served with the court order not to re-arrest him. So, it could not have acted with any guilty mind.

“From the foregoing therefore, I firmly hold that there was no violation or disobedience of the order of the High Court made on the 18th of December 2015 whatsoever,” it said.

The court faulted the appellant’s argument that the act of the EFCC was the act of the DSS since they are both agencies of the complainant in the charge against him – the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

It said both agencies are separate entities, set up be separate Acts and gave them separate functions and powers, one cannot bind the other or perform the functions of the other.

It drew an analogy to explain its position, and asked that: “If the appellant, having been granted bail, is driving along the road, and he committed a traffic offence, and the Police, which is also an agency of the Federal Government, can the Controller of Prisons, directed by the order of court to release him be arrested for disobedience of an order of court?

“In short, the lone issue for determination is resolved in favour of the 1st respondent and against the appellant and the other respondents, who did not file any brief and who sought to swim with the appellant.

“It is pertinent to observe that bail is of right to a person accused of a crime, once it is not a homicide charge, to enable him to prepare for his defence, which is his constitutional right. If a court grant bail, the order should be complied with as disobedience to court order is injurious to the smooth running of the administration of justice, and erodes the rule of law, which is necessary and part and parcel of any democratic society and to avoid anarchy. This appeal lacks merit. And it is hereby dismissed,” It said.

The judgment given in the appeal marked: CA/A/115C/M/2016 was, by the agreement of parties, applied to the other appeal marked: CA/A/159C/M/2016 because they were substantially the same.