An Ikeja High Court in Lagos, Monday dismissed a no-case submission filed by Mr Rickey Tarfa, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) who is standing trial for alleged obstruction and perverting the course of justice .
Tarfa , through his counsel, Abiodun Owonikoko (SAN) had informed the court that he had no case to answer when he was to open his defence Monday before Justice Aishat Opesanwo.
Justice Opesanwo, in a ruling, after a trial that lasted till 5.25 p.m from 11.00 a.m, dismissed the submission made by Owonikoko on behalf of Tarfa.
The judge said she was satisfied that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had established a prima- facie case against Tarfa and ordered the deendant to proceed with his defence.
The judge also declined to award Tarfa N150million as exemplary damages for ‘malicious prosecution’ as he had demanded from the EFCC.
“I have taken consideration of Section 38(2) of the EFCC Act and Section 97(3) of the Criminal Law of Lagos 2011, the oral and documentary evidence given by the prosecution.
“I am satisfied that the prosecution has established a prima-facie case against the defendant.
“I invite the defendant to proceed with his defence of the three-count charge contained in the information herein,” the judge said.
Tarfa is currently being tried on a three-count charge of obstruction of justice and perverting the course of justice by the EFCC.
The EFCC alleges that Tarfa wilfully obstructed two of its officers, Moses Awolusi and Sanusi Mohammed, from making an arrest of his clients within the premises of the Igbosere High Court, Lagos.
Tarfa’s clients, Gnanhoue Sourou and Nazaire Odeste, were suspected by the EFFC of committing some financial crimes.
The EFCC also alleges that Tarfa engaged in alleged illegal and secret communication with Justice Mohammed Yunusa, a Federal High Court judge who presided over the case.
Earlier during proceedings yesterday, Owonikoko (SAN) , the defence counsel to Tarfa had in the no-case submission dated December 12, 2017 urged the court to dismiss the case because the defence had no case to answer.
Owonikoko told the court that he has filed a motion praying the court to consider their arguments on the no-case submission adding that their written address was formulated a singular issue which is whether at the close of the prosecution’s arguments, a prima facie case has been established to warrant the defendant entering a defence in the three-count charge.
Owonikoko, argued that the essential ingredients necessary to secure a criminal conviction have been unproven by the EFCC.
He also noted that the EFCC during the trial, amended the charge but they did not amend the name on the charge, if the evidence does not correspond with the name of the charge, a vital ingredient of the offence is missing.”
Owonikoko said that the names of the clients that Tarfa was allegedly shielding from prosecution as they were also not properly indicated in the charge and that the EFCC did not amend the alleged error during the trial.
Owonikoko alleged that there were also discrepancies in the evidence presented by the EFCC regarding count-two of the charge was about Tarfa engaging in alleged secret communication with Justice Mohammed Yunusa.
“The call log brought by the prosecution was thoroughly disowned the maker of the document under cross-examination.
“There was so many discrepancies in the documents and the sole evidence they (EFCC) were depending on was that call log and these calls were made without hiding the caller identification.
“The statement from Justice Yunusa when he was invited by the EFCC was that he was friends with the defendant from university and the calls were social in nature and he never discussed his cases with the defendant.
“I find it curious that they are using only the written statement of Justice Yunusa as the basis of their case.
Regarding the third count of the charge which was obstruction of justice, Owonikoko said that issues surrounding the charge are currently subjects of appeal at the Court of Appeal.
“It is our submission that it is wrong for any of the parties before such an appeal to file a criminal charge on the complainant. For that we will be demanding exemplary damages from the EFCC for malicious prosecution,”he said.
Responding to the points raised by the defence, Mr G.A Latona the prosecuting counsel for the EFCC, asked the court to dismiss the defence’s no-case submission.
He said: “The application of the defence suffers from some fundamental lapses. The prosecution has not established the guilt of the defendant which is not required at this stage, what we have shown is that there is something that Your Lordship has to call upon him o explain.
“What the defence has done is to handpick bits and pieces of evidence and tell Your Lordship that ingredients have been established without considering the totality before the court,” he said.
The EFCC prosecutor disputed that the issues surrounding the third count of the criminal charge filed against Tarfa are issues currently on appeal at the higher court.
Latona in his submission also noted that the EFCC had proven that Tarfa engaged in unlawful communication with Justice Yunusa beyond reasonable doubt.
Justice Opesanwo adjourned the case till May 24 and 25 for Tarfa to open his defence.
