The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Federal High Court

  • ONSA: Dokpesi got N2.1 without executing contract – Witness

    ONSA: Dokpesi got N2.1 without executing contract – Witness

    A prosecution witness in the trial of businessman, Raymond Dokpesi told a Federal High Court in Abuja Thursday that Dokpesi received a total sum of N2.1billion from the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA) in 2015 without executing any contract to warrant such payment.

    The witness, Osaz Ozanobor (an official of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) said this while testifying yesterday as the 5th prosecution witness at the resumption of Dokpesi’s trial.

    Led in evidence by lead prosecuting lawyer, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), Ozanobor said ONSA, in a correspondence to the EFCC, said it did not award any contract to the defendants (Dokpesi and his firm, Daar Investment and Holdings Limited), but confirmed that it paid them N2,120,000,000 between January and March 2015.

    He said the Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP), a body saddled with the regulation of procurement activities by government agencies, confirmed, by a correspondence, that its database had neither the record of DAAR Investment and Holdings Limited nor any contract bidding process in which the company participated.

    Ozanabor said the N2.1b allegedly paid to DAAR was uncovered by his agency while investigating allegations of misappropriation of public funds by ONSA.

    The witness said, “Sometime in 2015, the Acting Executive Chairman of the EFCC (Mr. Ibrahim Magu) formed a team to investigate the misappropriation of public funds by the ONSA.

    “In the course of the investigation, we realised that sums of money were paid into the account of DAAR Investment and Holdings Limited by the Office of the National Security Adviser.

    “So a letter was written by my team to the Office of the National Security Adviser, requesting details concerning these payments to DAAR Investment and Holdings Limited and to find out if the company had any contract with the Office of the National Security Adviser.

    “They (ONSA) responded by stating that series of payments were made to DAAR Investment and Holding Limited totaling the sum of N2,120,000,000.

    “The mandates for the payment were also attached by the Office of the National Security Adviser. We got two responses from the Office of the National Security Adviser.

    “We wrote another letter to the BPP, requesting the list of contracts done by DAAR Investment and Holdings Limited, requesting the value of the contract and the list of bidders for that contract. They (BPP) responded to our letter,” the witness said.

    Jacobs later tendered the letters referred to by the witness, which were admitted by the court, without any objection by the defence.

    The prosecuting lawyer asked the witness to read portions o the letter tendered.

    A portion of ONSA’s response to EFCC’s investigators’ enquiry, read by the witness, confirm that N2.1bn was paid by ONSA to Daar without award and execution of any contract.

    ONSA prayed the EFCC “to recover the illicitly transferred funds and impose adequate sanction on all defaulting individuals and entities.”

    The BPP, in a letter, dated December 8, 2015, read by the witness, said after “an extensive search” of its database, there was no record of the company “participating in any procurement bidding.”

    Ozanobor also read from Daar Investment’s the response, to EFCC’s inquiry about whether or not contracts were awarded to it by ONSA.

    The letter by DAAR Investment, dated November 23, 2015, said, among others, that there was no contractual dealing between ONSA and the company.

    Under cross-examination by defence lawyer, Kanu Agabi (SAN), Ozanobor, when asked if there evidence that the defendants were aware ONSA did not comply with due process, he insisted that there was no contract between ONSA and DAAR.

    The witness said: “I read the responses from ONSA and the BPP and they clearly stated that there was no contract.”

    On whether “the work” was done, he said, “There was no contract. There are steps needed to be followed if you want to get contract from the government and everybody knows that. The steps were not followed, so it is self-explanatory that there was no contract.”

    On whether Daar was entitled to be paid for a work done, he said, “Yes, if the due process was followed and there was contract which was legitimately awarded.But if the steps are not followed, the company is not entitled to be paid.”

    Ozanobor said he did not know if ONSA was exempted from rules and regulations governing procurement by government agencies.

    Agabi suggested to the witness that with the EFCC’s letter of inquiry to ONSA, mentioning “national public relations project” and the title stated as “Presidential Media Initiative”, it was obvious that the money paid to DAAR was meant for a project for the laundering of the then Federal Government’s image.

    Ozanobor said “The ‘national public relations was coined like that by the defendants. We had to use it that way to verify whether something like that existed.”

    The trial resumes on July 6.

    Dokpesi and his firm are being tried on a six-count charge, in which they are accused of receiving N2.1bn from ONSA between January and March 2015.

    They are also accused of engaging in money laundering and breaching public procurement laws by allegedly receiving N2.12bn from ONSA to prosecute People’s Democratic Party’s 2015 presidential media campaign.

    Dokpesi and DAAR Investments were said to have received the sum of N2.12bn from ONSA, while the agency was being headed by Col. Sambo Dasuki (retd.), as payment for a “purported contract on presidential media initiative”.

    The prosecution alleged that the payment was in breach of and punishable under provisions of the Public Procurement Act, Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act and the EFCC (Establishment) Act.

  • Court fixes judgment for suit seeking Tambuwal’s sack

    Court fixes judgment for suit seeking Tambuwal’s sack

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed June 23 for judgment in a suit seeking to sack Sokoto State Governor, Aminu Tambuwal.

    Justice Gabriel Kolawole chose the date Tuesday after taking arguments from lawyers representing parties in the suit filed by two governorship aspirants of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Sokoto during the 2015 elections – Senator Umaru Dahiru and Abubakar Sanyinna.

    It is the plaintiffs’ contention that the December 4, 2014 governorship primary election of the APC was held in violation of the party’s guideline for the conduct of such election, its constitution and the Electoral Act.

    The violation, they argued, was to the effect that delegates to the primary election were neither screened nor verified and therefore, there was no list of delegates for the election.

    Defendants in the case are the APC, Tambuwal and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

    Arguing his clients’ case yesterday, plaintiffs’ lawyer, Roland Otaru (SAN) said “having regard to the documentary exhibits attached to the originating summons and further affidavit, the issue for determination is narrow.

    “All we are saying is that the 1st defendant’s governorship primary election of the 4th of December 2014 in Sokoto State did not comply with the provision of Section 87 of the Electoral Act (EA) 2010 (as amended)  the constitution of the party (APC) and the guidelines rolled out for the conduct of the primary election by the APC.

    “We have shown that there was no verification and accreditation of candidates. What we are saying is that there was no accreditation of candidates for the primary in accordance with the EA and the guidelines.

    “The 1st defendant (APC), having failed to comply with the guideline, by not allowing accreditation and verification of delegates, the primary was a nullity,” Otaru said.

    He submitted that the accreditation of delegates is fundamental to the democratic process.

    Otaru argued that having failed to follow the procedure laid down in the APC guideline and its constitution, the court should set aside the primary and grant all our reliefs, which the Supreme Court said are grantable.

    He noted that none of the defendants have been able to show the court the list of delegates that were accredited for the primary election.

    Otaru said the onus was now on them (the defendants) to show the list of accredited candidates. He added that “All they have shown are the reports of the primary.”

    Responding, lawyer to the APC and Tambuwal, Jibrin Okutepa and Sunday Ameh (both SAN) challenged the legitimacy of the suit. They urged the court to dismiss it.

    In their notices of preliminary objection and counter-affidavits, which they argued separately, APC and Tambuwal that the suit was wrongly commenced by way of a originating summons.

    They stated that with the contentious nature of the facts of the case, the suit ought to be commenced through a writ of summons which would have enabled parties to call witnesses to explain the facts of the case.

    “We have argued in our affidavit that these proceedings are not fit to come via originating summons,” he said.

    On the plaintiffs’ claim of non-accreditation of delegates during the primaries, Okutepa said the onus was on the plaintiffs to call delegates as witnesses to show that they were not accredited.

    He said: “The burden is on the plaintiffs to call delegates to come to court to show that they were not accredited. This case is bereft of any evidential support to warrant any declaration to be made in favour of the plaintiffs.”

    Okutepa argued that the plaintiffs’ prayer seeking the conduct of fresh primaries was not only ungrantable but could push the court to a path of collision with the Constitution in a situation where the law provided that primaries must be held 60days before the main election.

    Ameh argued in similar vein and maintained in his submission on his notice of preliminary objection that the suit was wrongly commenced.

    He said, “The preliminary objection challenges the manner of commencement of the action through an originating summons.

    “That the facts for and against the suit are hostile so much so that our counter-affidavits filed in response to the the plaintiffs’ affidavit led the plaintiffs to file a further and better affidavit shows that the facts are contentious and requires explanations.”

    Lawyer to INEC Alhassan Umar, said the commission had filed a counter-affidavit to enable it to exhibit its “monitoring report of APC governorship primaries in Sokoto State.”

    He however said that in compliance with the admonition of the Supreme Court in plethora of cases, the commission would remain neutral and not take side with any of the plaintiffs and the two other defendants.

    Umar said, “The pith of our case is that in pursuant of the constitutional mandate of the third defendant we monitored the primaries and the report is Exhibit I earlier referred.

    “In the case of Amaechi against INEC, the Supreme Court upheld the sanctity of the report of primaries issued by the third defendant (INEC).”

    Otaru, who later responded to the preliminary objection by Tambuwal and APC, argued that there was no any form of “friction” in the case to warrant the commencement of the suit via a writ of summons.

    He also said the two notices of preliminary objection did not comply with Order 29(4)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules of the Federal High Court his court having not been filed within 21 days of the defendants’ being served with the plaintiffs’ originating summons.

    Okutepa, on point of law, argued that Order 29 of the Civil Procedure Rules of the Federal High Court was not applicable to the situation “because we are not challenging the jurisdiction of the court.

    He said, “The suit has been wrongly commenced. We are not saying the court cannot hear the case.

    “The court can hear it through a writ of summons so that parties can call witnesses.”

  • Court awards N36.5m damages to pharmacy over illegal closure

    Court awards N36.5m damages to pharmacy over illegal closure

    The Federal High Court in Lagos has awarded N36.53 million to a pharmaceutical firm, Edichart Investments Limited, over the alleged closure and looting of its office.

    Other plaintiffs in the suit are Mr Samuel Edih and Mr Alezander Ani Eton.

    They sued the Pharmacist Council of Nigeria and the Lagos State Task Force on Counterfeit Processed Food.

    The plaintiffs claimed that their pharmacy on 45, Olarunlogbon Street, Antony Village, Lagos, was unlawfully sealed and raided.

    Justice Okon Abang held that the defendants’ reason for failing to register the plaintiffs’ pharmacy was not tenable.

    The judge agreed with the plaintiffs that the defendants acted outside their powers by sealing, raiding and carting away their’ drugs

    The court awarded N35.53million to the plaintiffs against the defendants as special damages and N1million as general damages.

    The plaintiffs sued in 2010 following the raiding and closure of the shop.

    The plaintiffs said the defendants raided the pharmacy on May 20, 2010 and carted away drugs.

    The shop was said to have been shut from May 20 to August 10, 2010 and from December 9, 2010 to August 4, 2011.

  • Alleged N360m bribe: 23 INEC staff now to be tried in Rivers

    Alleged N360m bribe: 23 INEC staff now to be tried in Rivers

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has directed that the 23 staff of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) accused of accepting N360m bribe from Governor Nyesom Wike of Rivers State are to be tried in the state.

    In a ruling on Monday, Justice John Tsoho upheld the objection raised by the INEC staff against their being tried in Abuja since their alleged offence took place in Rivers State.

    The Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) on March 7 this year, filed a seven-count charge against the 23 INEC staff for allegedly receiving N360m bribe from Wike in connection with the December 10, 2016, rerun elections in River State.

    Before they could be arraigned before the Federal High Court in Abuja, the defendants challenged the prosecution’s decision to conduct the proceedings in Abuja, when they were accused of receiving money in Rivers State.

    They sought the transfer of the case to Rivers State, a request the Prosecution objected to and insisted on their trial in Abuja.

    In his ruling, Justice Tsoho held that the charge ought to be filed in the capital of Rivers State, Port Harcourt, where the alleged offences were supposedly committed.

    The judge said the prosecution was unable to provide any cogent evidence of insecurity in Port Harcourt to justify the filing of the charge in Abuja.

    He said the prosecution failed to support, with evidence, its claims that there was “pervasive insecurity” in Port Harcourt and that the city has become ungovernable.

    The judge said the “frightening pictures” attached to the prosecution’s counter-affidavit have no proof of location and time of the incidents.

    He added that there was no evidence presented before the court to back the prosecution’s claim that there were daily reports of threat by cult groups in the state.

    Justice Tsoho said, in the absence of such evidence, provisions of Section 93 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 and Section 45 of the Federal High Court Act, providing that charges must be filed in the area or place where the alleged offences were committed “shall apply”.

    He consequently ordered the transfer of the case to Port Harcourt Division of the Federal High Court for the arraignment of the defendants.

     

  • ‘N11b fuel theft’: DSS fails to produce Ubah, files objection

    ‘N11b fuel theft’: DSS fails to produce Ubah, files objection

    …Gets fresh order to detain businessman

     

    The Department of State Services (DSS) Friday failed to produce Managing Director of Capital Oil and Gas Limited, Ifeanyi Ubah, as ordered by Justice Mohammed Idris of the Federal High Court in Lagos.

    The DSS instead filed a preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction to entertain Ubah’s suit.

    Its lawyer Mr Peter Oluremodu said Ubah was not produced because there was an order to detain him for 14 days issued by a Federal Capital Territory High Court.

    He said the DSS obtained the order in line with the provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015.

    Justice Idris had on May 9 ordered the DSS to produce Ubah in court to show because why he should not be released unconditionally.

    But, Ubah’s lawyer, Mr Raphael Oluyede, urged Justice Idris to hold that the DSS violated his order by not producing Ubah in court yesterday.

    He said the FCT High Court’s order was obtained to frustrate Justice Idris’ order, adding that it amounted to a challenge of the court’s majesty.

    “The respondents have not shown cause as why they failed to comply with your lordship’s order. Instead, they took steps to subvert the order. They acted in contempt of that order.

    “The court in Abuja was not informed about the order to produce him in Lagos. Their preliminary objection is not relevant to the consideration of whether they have obeyed the order to produce him.

    “I urge your lordship to consider the dignity of the court as paramount and to order Ubah’s unconditional release,” he said.

    Oluyede said Ubah was first arrested by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on March 19 and was released on April 14, after three weeks in detention.

    He said Ubah was “coerced” to sign a document acknowledging indebtedness to the Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) and to pledge some of his assets.

    He said EFCC also forced him to withdraw a fundamental rights suit he filed before he was released.

    He said after Ubah’s release, he approached the court again to stop his re-arrest.

    Oluyede said when the DSS invited Ubah, he wrote the agency about his pending suit.

    The lawyer said the DSS arrested his client despite being told about the suit.

    He accused the DSS of abusing its powers, and urged the court to hold that Ubah’s detention was contemptuous.

    Ruling, Justice Idris held that it would be wrong for him to order for Ubah’s release since a court of coordinate jurisdiction had issued an order that he be detained for 14 days.

    Justice Idris said his records show that the DSS was served with his order on May 10.

    “It appears that on the same date, ie, May 10, 2017, the fourth and fifth respondents (DSS and its Director-General) obtained from an FCT High Court an order allowing them to detain the first applicant (Ubah) in their custody for an initial period of 14 days pending the completion of investigation.

    “It is clear that there is a direct conflict between the order of this court and the order of my learned brother Y. Haliru J. A conflict situation has been created. It is sad and unfortunate.

    “Courts of coordinate jurisdiction have been cautioned in situations like this. I will in the circumstances of this case and the pronouncements of the learned Law Lords of the Supreme Court, act ex abundanti cautela (Latin phrase for ‘out of abundant caution’).

    “I will not make any order that will have the effect of neutralising the orders made by the FCT High Court. There must be discipline in the law. In insist on discipline in the law.

    “In the light of the orders of the FCT High Court made on the 10th of May 2017, I will not make an order for the release of the applicant.

    “Since the parties in this case have been served and the matter had been adjourned till the 18th day of May 2017, I shall adjourn till the 18th day of May 2017 when the substantive suit and all objection on jurisdiction will be taken together. This is the order of the court.”

    Ubah prayed the court to compel DSS release him from its custody.

    The EFCC, the DSS Director-General, NNPC and the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON) are among the respondents.

    The DSS arrested Ubah over alleged “economic sabotage” and “illegal sale of petroleum products stored in his tank farm by the NNPC”.

    “So far, it has been established that the products stolen amount to over N11billion,” the DSS said in a statement.

    In a supporting affidavit to Ubah’s application, Capital Oil’s Secretary, George Oranuba, said the arrest was over allegations made by the NNPC and AMCON, which were already subject of a lawsuit.

    Oranuba said a “throughput agreement” between Capital Oil and NNPC allows for “conversion and diversion of products by ‘operators’ so long as the operator is prepared to re-deliver the products within seven days of demand by the product’s owner or to pay a penalty for non-re-delivery”.

    According to him, the failure to re-deliver was a “mere” breach of contract, which can be remedied by the payment of penalty to the owner, and was not a criminal act for which Ubah should be arrested.

    “The throughput agreement expressly states that any penalty due for non-re-delivery is to be treated as a debt and I verily believe that law enforcement agencies are not allowed to operate as debt collectors,” the deponent said.

    Oranuba also said NNPC was indebted to Capitol Oil in “excess of N13billion”, yet the company did not call law enforcement agencies to collect the debt.

     

  • Alleged N9.79bn fraud: Court rejects request for bench warrant on Suswam

    Alleged N9.79bn fraud: Court rejects request for bench warrant on Suswam

    …Warns him against further absence

     

    A Federal High Court in Abuja Thursday rejected a request for the issuance of bench warrant against former Benue State governor, Gabriel Suswam.

    Instead, Justice Gabrial Kolawole, in a ruling, warned Suswam not to push the court to a state where it will resort to compelling him to attend court.

    The office of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), on March 27 this year, filed a 32-count charge against Suswam and two others, accusing them of diverting N9,791,602,453.8, part of which was meant for police reform and the Subsidy Reinvestment and Empowerment Programme (SURE-P).

    The others are the Finance Commissioner during Suswam’s regime, Omadachi Oklobia and former Accountant, Benue State Government House Administration, Mrs. Janet Aluga.

    They were to be arraigned on the new charge on April 11, but for the absence of Suswam, who was by then, in the custody of the Department for State Services (DSS).

    The development prompted Justice Kolawole to order the DSS to produce him (Suswam) on the next date and adjourned to May 11.

    The DSS however, released Suswam on May 7, and he was expected to attend court yesterday having attended court on Wednesday (May 10) when his lawyer, Joseph Daudu (SAN) withdrew the N10b rights enforcement suit he filed against the DSS, which Justice Kolawole struck out.

    But, at the commencement of proceedings Thursday, Suswam was not in court.

    Oklobia and Mrs. Aluga were present, prompting Justice Kolawole to ask the ex-governor’s lawyer, Miss C.E Ogbuozor why her client was not in court.

    Miss Ogbuozor said Suswam has been admitted in a hospital for hypertension related ailment, which allegedly arose due to his prolonged the custody of the DSS.

    She said, “After his release from the custody of the SSS (DSS), he met with us, his lawyers and explained to us that, owing to his detention, he has been unable to keep up with his medical checks or take his medication for a hypertensive medical condition, which he had.

    “Having stayed in detention for over 70 days, he proceeded to see his doctors, who after due examination advised that he be placed on bed rest and subject to his doctor’s observation.

    “We have also been issued with a report, which we have furnished the prosecution this morning. Out of respect for this court, the lead counsel, Mr. J.B Daudu (SAN) had to bring the first defendant to court yesterday (Wednesday) for his civil matter.

    “Today (Thursday) we made effort to secure his attendance in court this morning, but unfortunately, his doctors would not oblige us.

    “In view of the foregoing, we sincerely crave the indulgence of the court for an adjournment to enable the first defendant to attend his trial to take his plea and to also prepare on the appropriate plea on each of the 32 counts which we confirmed were duly served on him personally on May 8, 2017 following the orders of this court,” she said.

    Prosecuting lawyer, Aminu Alilu said he was not served with any medical report from the defence.

    Aminu said: “I have not seen or sighted any medical report as explained by my learned friend. In view of that, I believe that the first defendant is in breach of the order of court to appear today.

    “If the first defendant was strong enough to come to court out of respect for the court, the same respect should have been extended till today to take his plea.

    “His presence in court yesterday (Wednesday) showed that the condition is not as complicated as the counsel presented it.

    “We urge your lordship to invoking section 131 of the Administration of Criminal Justice (ACJ) Act, by which my Lord is empowered to issue a warrant of arrest on the first defendant, and we so pray.

    “But, we are not opposed to the adjournment since the arraignment cannot go on today in the absence of the first defendant,” Alilu said.

    Lawyers to the other defendants, F.R Onoja (for Oklobia) and Innocent Da’agba (for Aluga) agreed with Miss Ogbuozor and prayed the court not to grant Alilu’s request for bench warrant against Suswam, but to give him (Suswam) the benefit of the doubt.

    When a copy of Suswam’s medical report was later extended to him, Alilu faulted the document and insisted that the situation requires that a warrant of arrest should be issued against the defendant.

    Alilu said, “I just saw the medical report tendered by the first defendant. They said the report was from a private hospital and there ought to be an affidavit by the doctor, who signed it, informing the this honourable court, on oath, the ailment of the first defendant stated on the medical report.”

    Ruling, Justice Kolawole observed that Suswam actually attended court the previous day.

    The judge however, faulted Alilu’s argument, noting that he did not support with any judicial authority his argument that a medical report issued by a private hospital, as against a government hospital, must be backed with a supporting affidavit deposed to by the doctor, who signed it.

    Justice Kolawole said Alilu’s argument will not prevent the court from accepting the medical report, which is dated May 10, 2017.

    He was of the view that the report, having been issued by a private hospital, it could only be affected by the weight to be attached to it, even though sometimes government’s hospitals too “issue medical reports on abridged considerations”.

    The judge warned Suswam against being absent in subsequent proceedings, and adjourned to June 19 for arraignment.

     

  • Court strikes out Suswam N10bn suit against DSS, AGF

    Court strikes out Suswam N10bn suit against DSS, AGF

    ..To be arraigned Thursday

     

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has struck out a N10billion suit filed by former Benue State governor, Gabriel Suswam against the Department of State Services, its Director-General, Lawal Daura and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) Abubakar Malami (SAN).

    Justice Gabriel Kolawole in a ruling Wednesday, said he would strike the suit out because of an application by Suswam’s lawyer, Joseph Daudu (SAN) for the withdrawal of the suit.

    Suswam had filed the suit, a fundamental rights enforcement suit, shortly after he was arrested on February 25, 2017.

    He was released from the custody of the DSS on May 7 after spending about 70 days in detention, was present in court on Wednesday.

    Suswam, who is being tried by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) before Justice Ahmed Mohammed (also of the Federal High Court, Abuja), was absent in court on Tuesday when the case came up.

    Although his co-defendant, Omadachi Oklobia (Finance Commissioner under Suswam) was in court, Suswam was said to be indisposed.They are being tried for allegedly diverting Benue state’s funds estimated at over N3b.

    The office of the AGF also, on March 27 filed a 32-count charge against Suswam and the two others, accusing them of diverting the sum of N9,791,602,453.8, part of which was meant for police reform and the Subsidy Reinvestment and Empowerment Programme (SURE-P).

    Also named in the charge are Oklobia, and former Accountant, Benue State Government House Administration, Mrs. Janet Aluga.

    They were to be arraigbed on the new charge on April 11, but for the absence of Suswam, who was by then, in the custody of the DSS.

    The development prompted Justice Kolawole to order the DSS to ptoduce him on the next date and adjourned to May 11.

    It is not clear if Suswam, said to be indisposed, will attend court today on his own, since the DSS that the judge ordered to produce him has released him.

     

  • Ladoja bought cars for lawmakers to avoid impeachment – Witness

    Ladoja bought cars for lawmakers to avoid impeachment – Witness

    The Federal High Court in Lagos Tuesday heard that former Oyo State Governor Rashidi Ladoja allegedly bought cars for lawmakers to prevent his impeachment.

    A prosecution witness, Mr. Adewale Atanda, said this while testifying in Ladoja’s trial before Justice Mohammed Idris.

    He had earlier testified that the former governor gave directive that Oyo State’s shares be sold.

    He said N634million, which was part of the commission and profit realised by stockbrokers handling the shares’ sale, were used as slush funds to prevent Ladoja’s impeachment.

    The witness said the N634million was delivered to him by the stockbrokers.

    He said he removed N180million from the sum, which he had earlier borrowed and spent on Ladoja’s instructions during the heat of the impeachment saga.

    Part of the N180million, he said, was the N80million he obtained from Wema Bank Plc, which Ladoja used to purchase 22 vehicles for Oyo State lawmakers to prevent his impeachment.

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) re-arraigned Ladoja for allegedly converting N4.7billion from the state treasury to his personal use.

    He was charged along with Waheed Akanbi on eight counts of money laundering and unlawful conversion of public funds.

    Atanda, who was Ladoja’s Special Executive Assistant, said under cross-examination: “The loan was taken through V. T. Leasing Limited, and disbursement were made to the vendors of the vehicles which were collected by Oyo State government.

    “I used V. T. Leasing Limited to apply for the loan from Wema bank. Although I am a shareholder with less than one percent, I used my goodwill to get the loan and I did not make any application.

    “I did not know the condition attached to the vehicles given to members of State Assembly loyal to Governor Ladoja.

    “The vehicles were collected by the Oyo State government’s drivers before handling them to Ladoja’s loyalists at the State House of Assembly members.”

    Ladoja was governor from May 29, 2003 to January 12, 2006 when he was impeached. On November 1, 2006, the Appeal Court Ibadan, declared the impeachment null and illegal.

    The Supreme Court upheld the decision on November 11, 2009, and Ladajo resumed office on December 12, 2006. He, however, lost a re-election bid.

    The witness said another N633 million loan he collected when Ladoja returned as governor was part of expenses incurred when he shut down his hotel for one year to house Ladoja and his 14 loyalists in the Assembly during the impeachment saga.

    He said his hotel, Heritage Court and Inn, on Plot 176, Moshood Olugbani Street, Victoria Island, Lagos, was shut down from December 2005 to December 2006, because Ladoja’s life was at risk.

    He said there was no agreement that he would be paid back as no one thought Ladoja would return as Governor.

    He said when Ladoja was reinstated; he collected the N633 million on Ladoja’s instruction.

    Atanda also said he personally delivered £600,000 to Ladoja’s daughter, Bimpe, in London.

    Justice Idris has adjourned till May 25 for continuation of trial.

     

  • Rivers re-run probe: Judge declines to quash investigation report

    Rivers re-run probe: Judge declines to quash investigation report

    Justice Gabriel Kolawole of the Federal High Court, Abuja Tuesday declined to quash the report of investigation into violent clashes recorded during December 10, 2016 re-run legislative elections in Rivers State.

    In a judgment Tuesday, Justice Kolawole declared as illegal a Special Joint Investigative Panel set up by the Inspector-General of Police (IGP), Ibrahim Idris, to investigate the incidents.

    The judgement was on a suit by Rivers State governor, Nyesom Wike in which he challenged the legitimacy of the IGP panel, which comprised members of other independent security agencies like the Department of State Services (DSS).

    The judge faulted the validity of the report for use in any judicial proceedings; he ruled that he was unable to quash it because a copy of it was not presented before him.

    He said the report was, at best ministerial and could only be useful if it was turned to a law enforcement agency that was duly created and established by law for use as a material proper investigation.

    The judge rejected Wike’s prayer to disband the special investigative team and quash its report which he said was prepared and submitted to the IGP during the pendency of the suit.

    He (the judge) also refused Wike’s prayer that he declare that the investigative panel’s activities and report was intended to witch-hunt him.

    The judge said Wike failed to show how the decision of the defendants (IGP and others to set up the joint investigative team had violated any of their legal and constitutional rights.

    He said, as against Wike’s contention, the setting up of the police joint investigative team did not distract from the governor’s powers,  under Section 2(1) of the Judicial Commission Inquiry Commission, Laws of Rivers State 1999, to constitute his own judicial commission of inquiry to investigate the causes of violence during the election.

    Justic Kolawole granted only the first prayer relating the legality of the joint investigative team out of the 12 contained in the originating summons filed by Wike.

    On the first prayer, the judge described the joint investigative team headed by a police officer, Mr. Damian Okoro, as “a contraption unknown to any law and the Nigerian criminal justice system”.

    He said the defendants were unable to cite any law, from the Constitution, the Police Act or the National Security Agencies Act, enabling the Inspector-General of Police to set up such joint investigative panel.

    “Plaintiffs’ relief 1, having regard to the analysis that I have made on the legal status of the Special Joint Investigation Panel as an unknown body to the Nigerian criminal justice system ought to succeed and granted as prayed,” the judge ruled.

    On prayer relating to alleged witch-hunt, Justice Kolawole ruled, “Relief 4 fails because the exercise of investigative power is neither judicial nor quasi-judicial in nature but purely ministerial and does not carry with it obligation that pertains to one which is required to decide dispute because the primary obligation of an investigation from the prism of investigative and prosecutorial agencies is to establish facts that can be used to indict a suspect rather than to vindicate him except where he is to be used as prosecution witness.”

    He also said, “Relief 8 fails as the obligation of the investigative body is ministerial and not judicial or quasi-judicial.

    “Relief 9 is ungrantable as it smacks of relief seasoned with political consideration which the court lacks the power or jurisdiction to inquire into and/or to ascertain.

    “Relief 10 too is ungrantable as Exhibits AGR2 (letter by the IGP to Wike seeking the governor’s cooperation with the joint investigative team) has already executed its mandate and third defendant’s (Okoro) Special Joint Investigative Panel has, by the defendants’ deposition in their counter-affidavits, already submitted its report to the first defendant and granting relief 10 in the originating summons will be an order made in vain as the event which it seeks to quash has been accomplished.

    “Although the court can exercise its disciplinary jurisdiction pursuant to section 6(vi)(a) of the 1999 of the Constitution as amended to quash the report which was not only prepared by a body unknown to the Nigerian criminal justice system but allegedly prepared in the middle of the proceedings in which the investigative report it was going to prepare was in issue being contested by parties and can be seen as an act of defiance by the defendants.

    “It is an the elementary proposition of the law that in exercise of its powers pursuant to Order 34(2) of the Federal High Court Rules 2009, on judicial review that the court will not make such order unless the report is produced before it in whatever form the plaintiff can provide it. But no court of law will make an order to quash a report not produced before it.”

    The judge warned the Attorney-General of the Federation to be wary of the fact that the validity of the special investigative team was in doubt.

    The judge said, “As I earlier relied on the ipse dixit of the deponet to the defendants’ counter-affidavit none of whom -the deponets – was a member of the Special Joint Investigation Panel to make an order to quash a report I have not seen.

    “But far from this, I am contended, judicially speaking, (with) the decision I have reached that the said report earlier submitted to the first defendant (the IGP) was a product of a body not known to any law in Nigeria.

    “This, in my view, has put its validity for the purpose of any judicial proceedings in great doubt except a law enforcement body duly created by law uses its content as a working document to conduct a proper investigation for the use of the Attorney-General of the Federation.

    “In conclusion, plaintiffs’ suit only succeeds with respect to relief 1 which granted as prayed. Reliefs 2 to 12 fail and they are dismissed.”

    “In any event, it is left to the Attorney-General of the Federation, if he can, in exercise of his powers under section 174 (1)(a) of the Constitution use the said report against these issues which relate to its legality when presented to him initiate in filing criminal charge on the strength of section 174(1)(a) of the Constitution against such a report with its substantive validity may have been indicted.

    “Plaintiffs’ counsel has argued that the report which was prepared while the proceedings were pending be quashed.

    “I could have done so in exercise of the disciplinary jurisdiction of this court pursuant to section 6(6)(a) of the Constitution but the same report was not produced before this court so that an appropriate judicial disciplinary order could be made to vindicate the precedent authority of the Constitution which this court is bound to uphold by the exercise of its judicial powers,” the judge said.

    The Office of the Governor of Rivers State, Wike (in his personal capacity) and the Attorney-General of the state are the first to the third plaintiffs respectively in the suit filed in January this year.

    The IGP, the DSS and the head of the police investigative team, Damian Okoro are listed as defendants.

    Justice Kolawole’s judgment came about more than two months after the Office of the AGF charged 23 officials of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) before the Federal High Court, Abuja for allegedly receiving N360m bribe from Wike in relation to the rerun elections.

     

  • Court transfers criminal charge against Akinjide, Alison-Madueke, others

    Court transfers criminal charge against Akinjide, Alison-Madueke, others

    The criminal charge brought against the former Minister of FCT, Oloye Jumoke Akinjide, former Minister of Petroleum, Mrs Diezani Alison-Madueke and some key People’s Democratic Party (PDP) at the Federal High Court, Ibadan division by the EFCC over N650million allegedly received by the Party in Oyo state to prosecute 2015 presidential election has been transferred to another Judge Tuesday.

    Justice Ayo Emmanuel of Federal High Court 1, Ibadan in his short ruling Tuesday said “he cannot be seen to act as an appellate court over a decision made by my learned brother judge.”

    Also standing trial in the suit number FHC/IB/26c/2017 are Senator AYO Ademola Adeseun and Chief Olarenwaju Otiti .

    Part of the nineteen count charge brought against the defendants are : That you , Mrs Diezani Alison -Madueke (still at large) , Oloyo Jumoke Akinjide , Senator Ayo Ademola Adeseun and Chief Olarenwaju Otiti on or about the 26th day of March , 2015 , in Nigeria within the jurisdiction of this honourable Court conspired amongst yourselves to directly take possession of the N650million which sum you reasonably ought to have known forms part of the proceeds of an unlawful act and you thereby committed an offence contrary to section 18 (a) of the Money Laundry (prohibition) (amendment) Act, 2012 and punishable under section 15 (3) & 4 of the same Act.

    The counsel to Oloye Jumoke Akinjide , Chief Bolaji Ayorinde SAN had called the attention of the court to a pending civil matter at Court Two of the Federal High Court where the EFCC arraigned the defendants on the same case with an order of the court that parties should maintain status quo .

    In a similar argument, counsel to Senator AYO Ademola Adeseun, Mr Michael Lana described the process adopted by the EFCC as a gross disrespect to the decision made by the court, while urging the court to dismiss the suit.

    The EFCC lawyer, Mr Rotimi Oyedepo represented by Mr Abdullahi Mohammed explained that there is different between the suit filed at Court Two and the instant case.

    After hearing the submissions of all the counsel, the Presiding Judge Ayo Emmanuel adjourned for 30 minutes.

    In his short ruling after resumed hearing, Justice Ayo Emmanuel said “Having considered the various submissions made by the counsel, and more particularly the decision made by my learned brother judge, this court cannot pretend not to know the magnitude and weight of the said case . I cannot be seen to act as an appellate court over a decision because of its jurisdiction in order to forestall an instance where two courts act at variance and possibly making conflicting verdicts. It will be in the interest of justice and wise decision to have both the criminal and civil suits filed and determined by the same court. This suit is hereby transferred to Court Two”.

    ‪One of the defendants, Senator Adeseun was arrested on May 10th, 2016 and kept in EFCC custody for 40days during its investigation of the funds expended on behalf of the PDP to prosecute the 2015 presidential election in Oyo state.

    The Commission, had after this, arrested about others and instituted a civil suit against them in Court Two of the Federal High Court, while proceeding to Court to file criminal case against the defendants in Court One of the same Federal High Court.

    The said N650 million was undertaken for the party by Akinjide, Adeseun and a former Chairman of the party, Yinka Taiwo.