The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Eric Ikhilae

Mrs Jonathan stalls EFCC’s plan to confiscate her Abuja properties

Plan by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to obtain an ex-parte interim forfeiture order in respect of two Abuja properties allegedly owned by former First Lady, Patience Jonathan suffered a setback on Thursday.

Lawyers to Mrs Jonathan prevented Justice Nmandi Dimgba of the Federal High Court, Abuja from hearing the ex-parte motion filed by the EFCC seeking the interim order of forfeiture in relation to the properties located at Plot No. 1960, Cadastral Zone A05, Maitama District, and Plot No. 1350, Cadastral Zone A00, in Abuja.

The court had scheduled the hearing of the motion for yesterday. But lawyers to Mrs Jonathan got wind of the motion before yesterday and promptly filed an application, challenging the court’s jurisdiction to hear the EFCC’s motion.

At the mention of the case on Thursday, EFCC’s lawyer, Best Ojukwu announced his appearance and made move to introduce his motion when Mrs Jonathan’s lawyers, Ifedayo Adedipe (SAN) and Mike Ozekhome (SAN), who ordinarily should not have been heard (being proceedings in respect of an ex-parte motion) informed the court about their motion, challenging the court’s power to hear the EFCC’s motion.

An argument later ensued between lawyers on both sides on whether or not the proceedings for Thursday could be conducted in view of the motion by Mrs Jonathan.

Justice Dimgba later intervened and adjourned to November 11 for the hearing of both motions.

The courtroom was packed full with people, mostly women and their children who came to court to support Mrs Jonathan’s position.

The EFCC, in its motion, said the properties were said to be held in the name of Ariwabai Aruera Reachout Foundation, which Mrs Jonathan was said to be one of its “trustees”.

Beyond the prayer for an order for interim forfeiture of the properties, the EFCC also prayed for, “an order stopping any disposal, conveyance, mortgage, lease, sale or alienation or otherwise of the property/asset described in the schedule attached herein.”

It equally sought “an order authorising the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission to appoint a competent person(s)/firm to manage the asset/property listed in the schedule herein, temporarily forfeited to the Federal Government pending the conclusion of the investigation.”

The EFCC hinged its motion on three grounds, to the effect that: “The assets, property in respect of which the relief is sought are a subject matter of investigation, enquiry and examination by The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.

“There is need to preserve the asset/property mentioned in the schedule above herein pending the conclusion of the investigation and possibly determination of criminal charges that may be instituted against the suspect(s).

“If there is any transaction on the property by the suspects by way of disposal, conveyance, mortgage, lease, sale and alienation or otherwise of the asset or properly described in the schedule herein, it will render nugatory any consequential orders which the court may make if the suspect(s) is/are convicted of the offences alleged against her/them after possible due trial.”

In a supporting affidavit deposed to by one of its investigators, Kolawole Mukaila, the EFCC stated that a discreet investigation which commenced in 2016, showed that the plots of land, the subject matter of the case, were allocated to Ariwabai Reachout Foundation, allegedly belonging to Mrs Jonathan and her allies, in 2010 and 2011.

It noted that the foundation had Mrs Jonathan as one of the trustees and signatories of the account. It also stated that payments, transfers and purchases made from the Foundation’s accounts kept with Diamond Bank and Ecobank were “reasonably suspected to be fraudulent” and “an illegal dissipation of the nation’s resources”.

Part of the affidavit reads: “That sometimes in 2016 an alleged case of conspiracy and money laundering was received via intelligence report to the office of the Executive Chairman (of EFCC) and referred to my team for investigation.

“That my team swung into action to conduct a discreet investigation by writing letters to Ecobank, Diamond Bank, Corporate Affairs Commission and the Abuja Geographic Information Systems.

“That, in the course of the investigation, it was revealed from the responses from the Corporate Affairs Commission and Abuja Geographic Information Systems that the plots of land were allocated to Ariwabai Aruera Reachout Foundation belonging to the former First Lady, Patience Jonathan and her allies. Copies of the response from AGIS and Corporate Affairs Commission are hereby attached and marked as Exhibit EFCC 1A – 1C respectively.

“That investigation further reveals the accounts held by Ariwabai Aruera Reachout Foundation had the former First Lady, Patience Jonathan as one of the trustees and signatories of the accounts.

“Copies of the response from Diamond Bank and Ecobank are hereby attached and marked as Exhibits EFCC 2A – 2B respectively.

“That investigation also revealed that the plots of land were allocated in 2010 and the Certificate of Occupancy was issued in 2011.

“That all the above-stated payments/transfers/purchases had no contract award backing it up whatsoever and as such was reasonably suspected to be fraudulent payments and an illegal dissipation of the nation’s resources.”

In her motion, Mrs Jonathan queried the legitimacy of the motion filed by the EFCC and argued that it was intended to frustrate the outcome of a fundamental rights enforcement suit she filed, but which is pending before another judge of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

Mrs Jonathan, sought “an order of this court striking out the respondent’s ex parte originating summons dated September 20, 2017, filed at the registry of this court honourable court on the same date, on the ground that this honourable court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the said application.”

She hinged her motion on the ground that “On September 20, 2017, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission filed an application, which has no parties, described as ‘ex-parte originating summons’ at the registry of this honourable court, praying this court for an order of interim attachment/forfeiture of the assets of the applicant herein located at Plot No. 1960, Cadastral Zone A05, Maitama District, and Plot No. 1350, Cadastral Zone A00, both in Abuja, respectively.”

Mrs Jonathan argued that the said ‘ex parte originating summons’ was not one of the modes of commencement of an action under Order 3, Rule 1 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure Rules) 2009, and that it was not known or provided for by any law or rules of court.

The ex-First Lady added that motion by the EFCC was “an abuse of court process, as same was filed in order to overreach” her fundamental human rights enforcement suit pending before another judge, Justice John Tsoho of the court in suit marked FHC/ABJ/586/2017.

October 19, 2017
AGF dissociates self from alleged probe of CJN

The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami (SAN) has dissociated himself and his office from report that the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen was being investigated for corruption related issues.

Malami, in a statement issued on Friday by his spokesman, Salihu Isah, said he holds the CJN in high esteem and will not be part of an attempt to denigrate his person and the office he (Onnoghen) occupies.
The AGF faulted insinuations that the information which formed the basis of the media report emanated from his office.

He said he was not aware of such probe of the CJN and would not be party to such act.
The CJN, reacted to the report in a statement on Wednesday, denying any wrong doing and said he was ready to face any probe.

The statement issued ON Friday by the office of the AGF reads: “The attention of the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, SAN has been drawn to a report in the media space insinuating that the Honourable Chief Justice of Nigeria, Hon. Justice Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen, GCON and other former and serving government and judicial officers are under investigation for alleged corruption.

“The report also listed other high-profile Nigerians who it claimed are purportedly under investigation for corruption to include former Coordinating Minister for the Economy and Minister of Finance under ex-President Goodluck Jonathan, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, present Minister of Solid Minerals Development and former Governor of Ekiti State, Dr. Kayode Fayemi, a sitting judge of the Federal High Court, Hon. Justice Abdu Kafarati, among others.

“The Honourable Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice wishes to express his displeasure over the unfortunate and unbecoming innuendo by certain persons and agencies which sought to accuse his office of leaking what was termed as classified information to the public.

“This office, therefore, wishes to state categorically, but with absolute repudiation, that it did not at any time leak such information to the media as wrongly alluded by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

“The pertinent question to ask is, since the EFCC has publicly denied that the Honourable Chief Justice of Nigeria is not under probe or investigation; is it then possible for the same EFCC to have forwarded any classified information on a non-existent probe or investigation of the Honourable CJN to the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation?

“It also goes to show that the Office of the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation could not have leaked a non-existent classified information on an equally non-existent probe or investigation.

“The Honourable Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice strongly frowns at any unsavoury attempt or conspiracy to drag his office and that of the Honourable Chief Justice of Nigeria into petty squabbles in the midst of burning national issues.

“We, therefore, use this opportunity to reaffirm our deep respect for the distinguished person and office of the Honourable Chief Justice of Nigeria, and we will never be party to any unpatriotic effort to denigrate his exalted office.

“We wish to state unequivocally that the office of the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation will continue to collaborate with His Lordship in his efforts to reform the judiciary and galvanize the anti-graft war.

“Indeed the present administration appreciates His Lordship for his unwavering support for its anti-corruption drive.

“We wish to state further that we are neither aware of nor privy to any purported probe or ongoing investigation of the Honourable Chief Justice of Nigeria by any security or anti-graft agency.

“The office of the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation dissociates itself from the baseless allusion or suggestion obviously made in bad faith to the effect that His Lordship is under any form of probe or investigation whatsoever.

“In view of the above, the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice wishes to emphatically reiterate that he has profound confidence in the Chief Justice of Nigeria and wishes His Lordship the very best in the discharge or performance of his daunting duties to the nation at large.”

September 8, 2017
Sacked legislators: CSOs fault failure by Saraki, Dogara to obey judgement
- INEC charges NGOs on voters’ enlightenment
A coalition of Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) have condemned the failure of the Senate President, Bukola Saraki and House of Representatives Speaker, Yakubu Dogara to obey subsisting court judgments, sacking some members of both chambers of the National Assembly.

The CSOs, acting under the aegis of Nigeria Civil Society Situation Room (NCSSR), said in Abuja on Monday that undemocratic and unlawful where heads of democratic institutions choose and pick which court judgments to obey or ignore.

NCSSR’s coordinator and Executive Director, Policy and Legal Advocacy Centre (PLAC), Clement Nwankwo said the development was worrisome and called on Saraki and Dogara to allow those, who have won their cases in court to be sworn-in, in place of those currently sacked, but still holding on to the seats on the pretext that they have appealed.

On April 7, the Supreme Court sacked Sopuluchukwu Ezeonwuka of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) representing Orumba North/South, Anambra Federal Constituency in the House of Representatives.
The court’s judgment was in an appeal filed against Ezeonwuka’s election by a member of the party, Chief Ben Nwanwko.

Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, in a lead judgment of a five-man panel, said Nwankwo’s name was wrongly substituted with the first respondent (Ezeonwuka) after he had obtained the nomination of the party to contest the National Assembly election.

On June 23, the Supreme Court also sacked Senator Sani Abubakar Danladi (PDP, Taraba North Senatorial District) and Herman Hembe (All Progressives Congress -APC- Vandeikya/ Konshisha Federal Constituency of Benue State in the House of Representatives.

In the case of Senator ‎Danladi, the apex court unanimously ordered that Alhaji Shuaibu Isa Lau, be sworn-in by the Senate President or the clerk as the Senator representing Taraba North.

The court asked that Hembe be replaced by Mrs. Dorothy Mato.

There is also the case of Bassey Etim, who the court ordered to Senator Bassey Albert Akpan, currently occupying the Akwa-Ibom North East senatorial seat.

A Federal High Court, Uyo in February declared that Etim was the rightful holder of the Akwa-Ibom North East senatorial seat currently occupied by Senator Bassey Akpan in view of his (Etim’s) victory at the primaries conducted by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in 2015. The court had ordered that Etim be sworn-in to replace Akpan.

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), in compliance with the court order, issued a fresh Certificate of Return to Etim on March 28, while he has been waiting on the Senate to give him the go-ahead.

Akpan has, however, filed two cases in courts, one at the Federal High Court, Abuja and another at the Court of Appeal, Calabar, to stop his removal.

He is seeking the court to upturn the order of the Federal High Court, which mandated the Senate to swear in Etim.

The Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, in a letter to the Senate President, Dr Bukola Saraki, said that Etim should be sworn in because there is no order of the court stopping the exercise.

Saraki and Dogara, as at yesterday, are yet to give effect to the judgments in relation to these sacked legislators.

Nwankwo spoke in Abuja on Monday alongside Prof Mohammed Kuna (Special Assistant to the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof Mahmood Yakubu) and Executive Director of Human Rights Monitor (HRM), Festus Okoye, at the public presentation of a compendium of petitions arising from the 2015 general elections, put together by NCSSR, with support by the Open Society Initiative for West Africa (OSIWA).

Nwankwo said: “We do have, at this moment specific cases of persons, particularly legislative elections, where the tribunals have given judgments and annulled the elections of persons, who had already been sworn in, and asked the Senate of House of Reps to swear in new persons, and the legislative houses are not swearing in this persons on the ostensible reasons that they are waiting for the final court to reach a decision on this.

“Once somebody, who has been sworn in, but, whose election is annulled by the tribunal, remains in office, the concern is that when person, who is challenging him files an appeal, the person sitting on that seat does not respond quickly to enough to the appeal/petition, the petition continues to drag.

“I think we have about three or four cases going on at this time. Persons, who the tribunal found to have won the elections at the tribunal level have not been able to take their seats, because the person, who are occupying the seats have appealed.

“The Senate and the House have refused to ask the persons to vacate the seats because they said they have appealed. I think the right thing for the Legislative houses to do is to swear in the person, who the court or tribunal has ruled is validly elected.

“If he goes on appeal and that person loses, I do not see the reason why that person cannot be excused and whoever has won at that final level is asked to take over.

“But, where a person is appealing a decision that has sacked him and he remains on that seat, the issue of diligent prosecution of the appeal does not become their priority. They could, in fact, remain on seat for much longer. So, we think the leadership of the Senate and the House of Reps needs to respond to this particular situation.”

He regretted the inability of existing political parties to impact positively on peoples’ lives, blaming it on the way the political party system is structured, which he said accounts for why it has not responded adequately to the demand and expectations of Nigerians.

Nwankwo noted that: “When Nigerian voted in a government in 2015, they a lot of expectations. Unfortunately, those expectations have not been met. The ruling party has not been able to guide its government to deliver on expectations that Nigerians have of it. And the opposition party has not been able to work to keep the ruling party focused and responsive to the needs of Nigerians.”

“So, we are very worried about the build ups to 2019 and the weak political party system that we have in Nigeria today. And we hope that the political parties will understand the need to strengthen the political process.”

Nwankwo said intervention like this by CSOs and their constant monitoring of political parties and political office holders are ways of strengthening the system.

Professor Kukana: said the observation on the weakness of the political parties is apt, but worrisome because the parties exploit the electorate ignorance as against enlightening them to make right choices.

He said the task of educating the electorate to make informed decisions that will result in the enthronement of quality leadership rest on the CSOs, not the greedy politicians and their weak and exploitative political parties.

Okoye, who took an overview of the compendium, expressed concern about conflicting decisions on similar issues by courts, particularly the Court of Appeal and on electoral cases.

“For me the implication of some divisions of the Court of Appeal refusing to abide the decisions of the Supreme Court, and some electoral tribunals, refusing to abide by the decisions of the Supreme Court, is very serious.

“Our judicial system and judicial process are anchored on the principle of precedent. The moment the Supreme Court laid down the law, it becomes the precedent and all other inferior courts must follow it.

“The moment courts begin to pick and choose which decision to follow, it becomes very problematic for our electoral process and undermines the judicial process.

“I think that one of the things that ought to be done, especially by the Court of Appeal, is that the moment a decision is rendered, the judgment must be circulated to other divisions of the court, so that they become aware of what a division has decided on a particular issue, to avoid this type of challenges,” Okoye said.
July 12, 2017
Ex-finance minister being investigated over $1.2b fraud – EFCC

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) disclosed on Monday that it was investigating former Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Justice Minister, Mohammed Adoke (SAN) and a former Finance Minister in ration to $1.2billion fraud.

Although the EFCC was silent on the identify the ex-Finance Minister, it said the fresh investigation was informed by its discovery of the role Adoke allegedly played in the Malabo Oil deal, through which some prominent Nigerians allegedly defrauded the Federal Government.

The EFCC stated that Adoke is presently being investigated along with “the Finance Minister for fraudulently using Federal Government’s excrow account to receive the bribe money paid by the applicants to Malabu Oil and Gas Ltd.”

The commission made this disclosure in its counter-affidavit in reaction to applications by Nigerian Agip Exploration Limited (NAE) and Shell Nigeria Exploration and Production Company Ltd (SNEPCO), seeking the vacation of orders made by a Federal High Court in Abuja on January 26, 2017 for the temporary forfeiture of Oil Prospecting Licence (OPL) 245, subject of the controversial Malabu Oil deal.

The EFCC first referred to the alleged $1.2b fraud in its application for the temporary forfeiture orders.
It stated, in the application, how Shell, Agip, former Petroleum Minister, Dan Etete, Adoke and others allegedly short-changed the Nigerian government through the Malabu Oil deal.
“Shell and Agip went into a fraudulent agreement with Malabu Oil and Gas in which the companies will pay signature bonus of $210m to the Federal Government of Nigeria while the sum of $1.2b would be paid to the owners of Malabu Oil and Gas Ltd,” it said.

The EFCC added that, contrary to Shell’s claim that the $1.2b was for compensation, the investigation revealed that “the money was a bribe to Dan Etete and his cronies.
“Shell was aware, at the time of consummating this transaction, that Dan Etete, the owner of Malabu Oil and Gas Ltd, was already a convict and hence, was not willing to pay the said sum of $1.2b directly to Dan Etete and or Malabu Oil and Gas Ltd.
“One Mohammed Adoke, who was the Federal Government’s counsel in series of arbitration instituted by Shell in London on the said oil well and, who later became the AGF, conspired with Shell/Agip to route the payment of the said sum of $1.2b bribe money through FG’s excrow account with JP Morgan Chase Bank,” EFCC said.
In its counter-affidavit, which was argued yesterday, the EFCC said, although it has filed charges against Adoke and some others, its fresh investigation was informed by new revelations.
It said investigation so far conducted “revealed that the 1st applicant (Agip) conspired with others to defraud the Federal Government of Nigeria of the sum of $1.2b that should. Rightly have gone to the Federation Account,” it said.
The EFCC added that contrary to claim by Agip and Shell that the forfeiture orders were wrongly granted by the court, its investigation revealed that the applicants (Agip and Shell) and others conspired to fleece the Nigerian government of over $1b in bribery and revenue.
Arguing the counter affidavit yesterday, EFCC’s lawyer, Johnson Ojogbane, urged the court to dismiss the applications by Agip and Shell for lacking in merit.
Ojogbane contended that contrary to the claim by the applicants, OPL 245 was a tangible asset which was a subject of criminal investigation and prosecution.
Ojogbane said, “OPL 245 is an oil block. It is a tangible oil block. The order my lord gave was to prevent any step or action on the oil block,” he said.
Ojogbane contended that the argument by Konyinsola Ajayi (SAN) and Babatunde Fagbohunlu (SAN) for the applicants, on the constitutionality the temporary forfeiture order was completely misconceived.
He added that “Section 44(2)(k) Constitution allows the temporary taking of property for the purpose of any examination or inquiry.

“So it does not in any way offend the Constitution. The OPL 245 is a subject of criminal investigation and prosecution. It is not just investigation, there is a charge pending now before this court.
“The application is not just to preserve the res (the subject matter), the activities surrounding OPL 245, is criminal. It can be described as proceeds of crime.
“Other charges will be following. With th forfeiture, we are stopping criminality from progressing,” Ojogbane said.
Ajayi (for Shell) argued that the OPL 245 was not such property that could be seized by an order of court as contemplated under Sections 28 and 29 of the EFCC Act, on which the EFCC relied in applying for the forfeiture orders.
Ajayi said: “What we have is a chosen action, a mere licence, an intangible right that is incapable of destruction or being moved. It is a licence over thousands of miles on the ocean. The ocean cannot be destroyed.
“Nothing can be destroyed; nothing can be taken away, nothing can be put under the seal of the EFCC, nothing can be seized by the EFCC,” he said.
Ajayi maintained that by virtue of sections 28 and 29 of EFCC Act, the Chairman of EFCC, in whose name the ex parte application filed by the anti-graft agency was initiated, was not the proper person to institute the action.
Sections 28 and 29 of the EFCC Act, he argued, envisage that the ex parte application for interim forfeiture is filed in the name of the EFCC and not its chairman.
“Having been brought by an improper person, the jurisdiction and powers of the court have not been activated,” he said.
Ajayi further contended that the order of interim forfeiture was unnecessary as without it, neither Shell nor Agip could take any action on the OPL 245 except it was authorised by the Federal Government.
He contended that under Section 28 of the EFCC Act, certain conditions precedent, including arresting of suspects and tracing of the assets had not been complied with before the application for forfeiture was filed.
Fagbohunlu (for Agip) argued that an order of forfeiture could not be granted through an ex parte motion except through a motion on notice.
He said, “Is it possible for the EFCC to attach and subsequently forfeit asset of a subject in the proceedings which from start to the end is on an exparte basis?
“My response is that the answer that my lord should give is an emphatic no,” he said.
Fagbohunlu contended that it was against the spirit of the Constitution for an asset to be seized from someone without being heard.
He added: “Sections 28 and 29 of the EFCC Act do not even purport that the proceedings for forfeiture of an asset can be conducted on ex parte throughout.
“There is nothing in section 28 that says an interim order can be applied for through ex parte.That application has to be on notice.
What then follows is the forfeiture proceedings which can be done ex parte,” Fagbohunlu said.
Justice John Tsoho adjourned to March 13 for ruling.

February 27, 2017
‘Saraki wrong to earn double salaries as public officer’

An official of the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB), Samuel Madojemu on Thursday insisted that Senate President, Bukola Saraki was wrong to have earned monthly payments from the Kwara State governor at the same time when he was already elected to the Senate.

Madojemu, who is the Head, Intelligence Unit of the CCB was emphatic when he said: “A public officer is not permitted to earn two salaries from public treasuries, using two government positions at the same time.”

The CCB official spoke while testifying as the third prosecution witness at the resumption of proceedings in Saraki’s trial before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) on charges of false assets declaration.

Led in evidence by lead prosecution lawyer, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), Madojemu also said Saraki failed to declare, among others, his mortgage and the property he acquired through mortgage in London. He added that Saraki failed to declare his liability of about $3.4m in an America Express Card.

“Your lordship, a public officer who has a mortgage abroad is expected to declare the mortgage. Having fully paid the mortgage, the public officer is expected to declare the property in his asset declaration form. But the defendant did not declare any mortgage in London.

“He (Saraki) gave instruction to his banker, the GTB, to transfer £1,516,000 in two days to a bank in Fortis Bank for a mortgage in London. There was no declaration for the property in London.”

Madojemu also said the Senate President made a single deposit of N77m cash on September 5, 2007, when his monthly salary, as governor of Kwara State, was N254,412.25.

The witness, who read from a statement of Saraki’s account with the Guaranty Trust Bank Plc, said the N77m was deposited in the defendant’s account in one day.

“Your lordship, the cash lodgment deposited is not consonant with the income of the defendant as a governor. It cannot be attributable to his legitimate income. Your lordship, the defendant was earning 254,412.25 for a month.

“Within that same period, in one single day, as shown in the statement of account made available by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), there was lodgment of N77m in his account in one day.

“From Exhibit 15, the salary of governors as of August 12, 2007, was N254,412.25.”

On his role in the investigation of Saraki’s case, the witness said: “My role with reference to the exhibits mentioned already, was to compare the exhibits with the asset declaration forms of the defendants to see if there was any infraction with regards to his declarations.Those exhibits were sourced by EFCC officials in my team.”

Under cross-examination by the defence lawyer, Paul Erokoro (SAN), Madojemu was shown the contradiction in the number of Saraki’s asset declaration forms that the prosecution had tendered in court and the number of the forms which the CCB official had linked to Saraki in an affidavit.

While seven of Saraki’s declaration forms had been tendered before the CCT, Madojemu had stated in the affidavit that Saraki had only declared four.

When asked by the defence lawyer if four and seven were the same, the witness said no.

Responding to further questions, the witness confirmed that he had earlier stated that it was unlawful for a public officer to trade in rice and sugar commodities.

The witness said a public officer was permitted to own shares in companies, and when asked further, he said nothing stopped such public officers from owning shares in companies trading in rice and sugar.

He confirmed that he never met Saraki in person and never asked him if he had shares in any company trading in rice and sugar.

Madojemu said: “Public officer is allowed to own shares in a company. Nothing to my knowledge stops a public officer from owning controlling shares in a limited liability company. A public officer can be allowed to own controlling shares in a company that trades in rice and sugar.

“I did not ask the defendant whether he had shares in the company that traded rice and sugar. I did not find out if any of the companies in which the defendant owns share trades in rice and sugar. I have never seen the audited account of the defendant’s companies,” the witness said.

Earlier, Saraki was re-arraigned on an amended 18-count charge filed by the prosecution, t which he pleaded not guilty.

Saraki is, in the amended charge, accused of failing to make a written declaration of his “properties and assets”, that is, N77m paid into his account with Guaranty Trust Bank, GRA, Ilorin branch on September 5, 2007.

It was also alleged that the sum of N77m was “not fairly attributable” to Saraki’s “income, gifts or loan approved by the Code of Conduct for Public Officers”.

Further hearing in the case is adjourned to March 2.

February 23, 2017
‘Why we investigated Justice Ademola’

An official of the Department of State Services (DSS), Babatunde Adepoju told a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) on Monday that the agency’s investigation of Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court was informed by allegations of wrongdoing.

Adepoju said the intelligence in his brief included allegations that Justice Ademola received bribes from former National Security Adviser (NSA), Sambo Dasuki and Biafra agitator, Nnamdi Kanu to grant them bail.

The DSS operative said he was directed on October 9 last year to investigate allegations of bribery involving Justice Ademola.

Adepoju, who testified as a prosecution witness in the ongoing trial of Justice Ademola, his wife, Olabowale and a lawyer, Joe Agi (SAN), said he was also directed to investigate of one Honourable Jenkins Gwede, who wrote a petition against Justice Ademola at the National Judicial Council (NJC), alleging that the judge collected $200,000 to discharge an earlier garnishee order granted in his favour.

Led in evidence by lead prosecution lawyer, Segun Jegede, the witnesS told the court he was equally directed to investigate an allegation that Justice Ademola influenced the appointment of his wife as the Head of Service of Lagos State through his close relationship with former Lagos Governor, Bola Tinubu and his position as a Federal High Court judge.

The witness confirmed that Justice Ademola denied all the allegations.

Adepoju said upon investigation, there was no evidence to prove that Justice Ademola influenced the appointment of his wife as HOS of Lagos State.

The witness said there was equally no evidence to support Jenkins’ allegations.

Adepoju said Justice Ademola told him that Jenkins apologised to him, two days after submitting the petition to the NJC, stating that he was misinformed by lawyers to the Delta State Government.

The witness added that Justice Ademola told him that he (Jenkins) swore to an affidavit in which he withdrew the petition.

He said he did not also find evidence to prove that Justice Ademola collected bribe to grant bail to Sambo Dasuki or Nnamdi Kanu. “They were hearsays”, he said.

Adepoju said investigation also supported Justice Ademola’s claim that the prosecution, in the Dasuki case, did not oppose Dasuki’s bail application.

Adepoju said Agi made a statement to the DSS, in which he said the N30 million he was accused of paying into the account of Mrs Ademola was at the instance of two of his clients: Ken Hubert and Bassey Bassey who instructed him to donate $150,000 in support of the Ademolas’ daughter’s wedding.

He said when they contacted the two individuals named by Agi, they confirmed instructing the donation.

The witness said investigation also revealed that Justice Ademola granted three garnishee orders in excess of $636 million, $637 million and $3.1 billion in favour of a client of Joe Agi around the period Joe Agi paid N30 million in three tranches of N10 million each into the accounts of Mrs Ademola.

He said Justice Ademola told him during interrogation that some of the money recovered from his residence were the conversion of the estacodes he got and withdrawals from his accounts for onward payment to a construction company, Dadks Concept that was carrying out a major construction at one of his properties at 55 Oduduwa Crescent, Lagos.

Under cross-examination, Adepoju said he is aware that estacodes are given in foreign currencies, adding that he is also aware that whether to spend or not to spend the estacodes remains the business of the receiver of the estacodes.

Adepoju said, from available records, there are other sources of income for Justice Ademola.

The witness said he came across a lodgement of $520,000 by Olabode Johnson of Johnson & Johnson partners in the statement of account of Justice Ademola.

“From the record provided by the firm, it was a large sum shared to three brothers with Justice Ademola. From Johnson & Johnson record, the money was from sale of property belonging to Justice Ademola and two other brothers,” he said.

Further hearing resumes today.

February 20, 2017
Why no record for N558.2m taken monthly by ex-Air chief

A key witness in the trial of former Chief of Air Staff, Mohammed Dikko Umar, Air Commodore Salisu Yishau (rtd.) explained on Thursday why there are no receipts for the N558.2million allegedly diverted monthly by Umar while he was in office between October 2010 and September 2012.

Yushau, a former Director, Finance and Accounts at the Nigerian Air Force (NAF) Headquarters, Abuja, had on Monday told a Federal High Court in Abuja how he always handed US dollar equivalent of N558.2m monthly to Umar.

He also gave details of how he assisted Umar to buy five choice houses in Abuja, Kaduna Nad Kano from the money he (Umar) allegedly diverted from the NAF.

Yushau, who was cross-examined yesterday by Umar’s lawyer, Hassan Liman (SAN), said there were manual for financial regulations that provided that there must be receipt for every payment by the NAF

He explained that all the payment to the COAS was upon his demand being NAF’s chief accounting officer. He added that there the payments were made without any authorising document, and hence, were never receipted.

The witness agreed with Liman that the NAF’s Financial Regulations Manual contained a mandatory provision that receipts must be issued for all payments by the NAF.

He explained that “in financial matters, payment means that there is a source document where a request for payment for expenditure is made through the Chief Accounting Officer and authority is given for the expenditure.

“So, whoever is collecting payment for the expenditure, that payment must be receipted. But, where the Chief Accounting Officer is saying give me this and there is no document, that cannot be said to be payment,” Yishau said.

The witness confirmed that he knew of the Financial Regulation of 2007 and revised 2009 “which regulates the financial dealings of ministries, departments and agencies, and other government establishments including the Nigerian Armed Forces.”

He added that the military being a unique government institution, said the financial regulation had a limited binding force on the military.

“The military is a unique institution and has its own norms, despite the financial regulations. The financial regulation is binding on the armed forces, so long as it does not affect the operational activities of the armed forces,” he said.

Yishau said under the military’s financial regulations, he as the Director of Finance and Accounts, was the accounting officer for the NAF, but that the Chief of Air Staff was the chief accounting officer.

The witness said by virtue of that, he was only responsible “for ensuring accountability, transparency, stewardship, probity and financial responsibility in all ramifications in the management of the finance of the Nigerian Air Force” through the Chief of Air Staff.

In rejecting the suggestion by Liman that it was part of his duty to prepare the budget of the air force, Yushau said: “It is not part of my schedule to prepare and present the budget to the National Assembly.

“I only give my input into the budget like other directors of the Nigerian Air Force. The budget office, when I was in the Nigerian Air Force was under the Chief of Policy and Plans and there was a Director of the budget under him.

“My input into the budget was in the form of an extent of implementation for the budget year. What I mean by the budget implementation are the details of the money received within the budget year and the programmes that were executed by the NAF.

“There were three main signatories to the Nigerian Air Force’s accounts. These were, the Commander Pay and Accounting Group, Ikeja Lagos; the Chief Accountant, usually a senior civilian account staff usually posted from the Accountant-General’s office; and the Air Force’s cashier,” Yushau said.

The witness said although he had a supervisory role on the Pay and Accounting Group, the Commander of the group “is responsible to the Chief of Air Staff.”

He also said there was a time he was a signatory to “an account designated at the headquarters of the Nigerian Air Force for the construction of NAF Conference Centre.

“There was also an account for a reactivation of that was Nigerian Air Force C130 fleet,” he said.

Although the lead prosecuting lawyer, Sylvanus Tahir opposed Liman’s move to tender the Manual for Financial Administration for the Armed Forces of Nigeria 2012 signed by the then Chief of Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshall Oluseyi Petinrin, the judge overruled him (Tahir) and admitted the document in evidence.

Justice Nnamdi Dimgba, in admitting the document, held that it was a was a subsidiary legislation which required no certification.

He adjourned to March 28 for Tahir to produce Yishau’s statement sought to be tendered by the defence.

February 16, 2017
‘Why ex-Presidential panel member can’t treat hypertension in South Africa’

The Office of the Attorney General of the Federation yesterday urged a Federal High Court in Abuja to decline a request by retired Air Commodore Mohammed Dikko Umar to be allowed two months to treat hypertension in South Africa.

Umar, an ex-member of the Presidential Committee investigating procurement of arms and equipment in the Armed Forces, is being tried with his company – Easy Jet Integrated Services Limited, on charges of money laundering, illegal possession of firearms and violation of Official Secret Act.

Umar’s lawyer, Hassan Liman (SAN) had in February 14 application urged the court to allow his client travel to South Africa for two months to treat hypertension and other ailments.

But, in a counter-affidavit to the application, a lawyer representing the AGF’s office, Shuaibu Labaran argued that Umar’s request was not only ridiculous, there was no credible evidence to support his claim to ill-health and that his ailment cannot be treated locally.

He said Umar, while in detention, never complained of any medical ailment and did not show any sign of “either hypertension nor hyperlipidemia.”

Labaran, who I the lead prosecuting lawyer, said Umar has not shown concrete evidence and an effective medical report from a medical facility in Nigeria to corroborate his claim to ill-health.

He said: “The defendant/applicant attached to his affidavit, EXHIBIT A, a letter purported to be an invitation from one Dr. R. M. S. KAJEE, a Private General Practitioner of 173 Rivonia Road, Rochester Place, Block A, Sandton, South Africa, requesting the defendant/applicant to come for a routine medical checkup;

“The defendant/applicant’s medical condition can be effectively treated in any medical facility in Nigeria by any general practitioner;

“The defendant/applicant’s medical report EXHIBIT A was not precise and did not show any need for a medical checkup outside Nigeria;

“The supposed medical report exhibited did not show reasons or a medical history that the defendant/applicant’s ill health could not be sufficiently attended by appropriate medical practitioners in Nigeria.

“The defendant/applicant is merely looking for an excuse to delay the trial and if possible jump bail. This court has the power to refuse this application. Refusing this application will better serve the interest of justice,” he said.

Although the court had planned to hear the application yesterday, the hearing was however postponed when Liman sought time to respond to the prosecution’s counter-affidavit.

Justice John Tsoho consequently adjourned to February 28 for hearing.

February 16, 2017
Magu: Court urged to disqualify Saraki, others from confirmation hearing

The Federal High Court in Abuja has been asked to disqualify Senate President, Bukola Saraki and 10 other Senators being prosecuted and investigated by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) from participating in the process leading to the confirmation of Ibarhim Magu as Chairman of the EFCC.

The request formed part of prayers contained in a suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/102/2017 filed in Abuja on Monday by a lawyer, Raji Rasheed Oyewumi.

Other Senators named in the suit with Saraki, as defendants, include Godswill Akpabio, Jonah Jang, Aliyu Wammako, Stella Oduah, Theodore Orji, Rabiu Kwankwanso, Ahmed Sani, Danjuma Goje, Joshua Dariye and Adamu Abdullahi.

Also listed as defendants are the Clerk of the National Assembly, the Senate, the Attorney General of the Federation and Magu.

The plaintiff’s contention is to the effect that, since the Senators are either being tried or investigated for economic and financial crimes in various courts and tribunals by the EFCC under the leadership of Magu, he (Magu) will not be afforded fair

Senate President, Bukola Saraki

hearing by the Senate headed by Saraki.

Oyewumi stated, in a supporting affidavit, that Saraki exhibited bias against the confirmation of Magu when he (Saraki) failed to read the letter of the Acting President, Yemi Osinbajo, seeking the confirmation of Magu, on the floor of the Senate until July 14, 2016 even when he got the letter on June 17, 2016.

[news_list display=”tag” tag=”Saraki” count=”3″ show_more=”on”]

He said, in further manifestation of their bias and conflicting interest in the nomination of the 15th defendant (Magu) the 1st defendant (Saraki) together with 2nd to 11 defendants (other named Senators) did not consider the 15th defendant’s nomination until December 15, 2016 when they rejected Magu’s nomination six months after the letter was read on the floor.

The plaintiff said the Senators flouted the Senate Standing Orders when they acted on the letter by rejecting Magu’s nomination without first, referring Magu to the appropriate committee of the 13th defendant (Senate), an executive or closed session instead of an open session.

He added that unlike when he recused himself from the proceedings leading to the passage of the Bill for the amendment of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act on October 27, 2016, because of his ongoing prosecution at the CCT, Saraki failed to recuse himself when the Senate was considering the confirmation of Magu.

Senator Godswill Akpabio

The plaintiff identified some of the cases against the Senators, which Magu and his EFCC are currently handling.

“The 1st defendant (Saraki) was investigated by the 15th defendant on an allegation of false declaration of assets which culminated in the 1ts defendant’s arraignment and ongoing prosecution at the CCT in charge No: CCT/ABJ/01/2015, and a prime prosecution witness in the trial, Michael Wetkas is an officer of the EFCC.

[news_list display=”tag” tag=”Magu” count=”2″ show_more=”on”]

He said the 2nd defendant (Akpabio) was being investigated by the EFCC over the allegation of abuse of office, diversion of public funds and embezzlement in relation to a petition by a lawyer, Leo Ekpeyong.

The plaintiff said the 3rd defendant, (Jang) was being investigated by Magu’s EFCC for allegedly awarding various contracts running into several billions of naira without due process and allegedly diverting N2billion Small and medium Scale Enterprises loan given by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) during his tenure.

The reliefs being sought by the plaintiffs are:

*A declaration that the 1st defendant is disqualified by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) from presiding over or participating in the deliberation, screening and voting on the nomination of the 15th defendant for the position of Chairman of the EFCC due to the apparent conflict of interest arising from the 15th defendant’s active role in his ongoing trial at the CCT.

*A declaration that the 2nd to 11th defendants are jointly and severally disqualified by the Constitution and the Senate Standing Order 2015 (as amended) from participating In the deliberation, screening and voting on the nomination of the 15th defendant for the position of Chairman of EFCC due to the apparent conflict of interest arising from their pending or ongoing cases of financial and economic crimes, given that the 15th defendant is coordinating and supervising the investigation into or prosecution for the said financial and economic crimes.

*A declaration that the 1st to 13th defendants jointly and severally violated the Senate Standing Order 2015 9as amended)n when they participated in the screening, deliberation and voting on the first or earlier nomination of the 15th defendant in the 13th defendant on the 15th day of December 2016 by not declaring their pecuniary interests in view of their pending or ongoing cases of financial and economic crimes, given that the 15th defendant is coordinating and supervising the investigation into or prosecution for the said financial and economic crimes.

[news_list display=”tag” tag=”EFCC” orderby=”popular” count=”2″ show_more=”on”]

*A declaration that the first and earlier rejection of the nomination of the 15th defendant for the position of Chairman of EFCC on the 15th day of December 2016 without first referring the 15th defendant to the appropriate committee of the 13th defendant and at an executive or closed session instead of an open session, is illegal, null, void and of no effect whatsoever.

*A declaration that the 15th defendant is entitled to be accorded fair hearing by the 1st to the 13th defendant during screening, deliberation and voting in the senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on his nomination for the position of Chairman of the EFCC.

*An order of injunction restraining the 1st defendant from presiding over or participating in the screening, deliberation or voting on the nomination of the 15th defendant for the position of Chairman of the EFCC.

*An order of injunction restraining the 2nd to 11th defendants from or participating in the screening, deliberation or voting on the nomination of the 15th defendant for the position of Chairman of the EFCC.

The case is yet to be assigned to any judge for hearing.

February 14, 2017
Cattle breeders deny involvement in ethno-religious violence nationwide

A group, Miyetti Allah Cattle Breeders Association of Nigeria (MACBAN) has denied claims in some quarters that its members were involved in ethnoreligious killings in some states across the country.

The group’s National Secretary, Baba Othman Ngelzarma said, in a statement yesterday, urged security agencies to investigate those linking his group’s members to incidents of violence. Ngelzama, who commiserated with the people of Southern Kaduna, Delta and other states over recent cases of attack and killings, said his group will continue to condemn perpetrators of evil regardless the groups or individuals involved.

“Precisely on the 9th December, 2016, one of our members was killed while ten of his cows were also allegedly killed by some elements from the Nimbo community in Enugu State, who crossed over to Idah Local Government area of Kogi State to commit the said crime.

“Then, some unscrupulous members of Igah community in Uzoajeh Local Government of Enugu State crossed over to Omasi in Anambra, killing twenty-two cows belonging to our members.

“This was followed by the killing of two of our members at Rugan Alahji Quadri, then five others were reportedly killed in Lushi, and worst still Fulani settlements of Bomaanda, Jollari (Garin Ardo Bakari) and Lande Jewshi were allegedly burnt down by some elements of Mumuyeh community in Lau Local Government of Taraba State.

“On that same fateful day, one of our members was also killed in a community close to Ganye in Jada Local Government area of Adamawa simply because some of his cows mistakenly strayed and damaged a few molded blocks in a block making factory.

“We were also notified of the killing of two villagers by Herdsmen in Ehuvu, in Ughelli North local government area.

“In recent times, precisely two Herdsmen were brutally killed on 7th January 2017 at Omobanam east in Anambra State for presumably ritual purposes.

“In all the reported cases, our timely intervention by calling for restraint amongst our members helped
forstalled the looming reprisal attacks.”

“Unfortunately, when such violence and killings occur, farmers and members of such communities receive favorable reporting, while herdsmen are singled out for condemnation.

“That has become like a recurring decimal, and also plays a major role in the deep seated animosity between the feuding parties. It is our firm belief that balance reportage would go a long way in addressing this ugly trend.

“Again, MACBAN vehemently disassociates itself from those who hold the view that the Southern Kaduna skirmishes between Fulanis and the other ethnic groupings represent a case of ethnic cleaning o religious war.

“Our resolve for peaceful co-existence between our members and their host communities remain firm. This explains our initiatives and recent trips to Enugu State where we rubbed minds with the Pan-Ndigbo Ohanaeze, and representatives of the Enugu State Governor on how best we can actualize our peace plan,” the group said.

February 9, 2017