The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Federal High Court

  • Don’t unfreeze Ozekhome’s N75m, EFCC tells judge

    Don’t unfreeze Ozekhome’s N75m, EFCC tells judge

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has asked Justice Abdulaziz Anka of the Federal High Court, Lagos to reject Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN)’s bid to unfreeze his Guaranty Trust Bank (GTB) account which has a balance of N75m.

    It stated this Thursday in a counter-affidavit it filed in opposition to Ozekhome’s application.

    Justice Anna froze the account on February 7, following an ex-parte application from the EFCC claiming that the N75m deposited into the account last December 15, was suspected to be proceeds of crime.

    He ordered Ozekhome to forfeit the money for 120 days pending investigation by the EFCC.

    Ozekhome is the counsel for the Governor of Ekiti State, Mr Ayodele Fayose, whose accounts have been frozen by the EFCC for alleged money laundering.

    The EFCC claimed that the money, which was paid to Ozekhome as legal fee by Fayose, was part of the N2.26billion arms procurement fund, which a former National Security Adviser, Col. Sambo Dasuki (retd.), allegedly looted.

    Obanikoro
    Obanikoro

    It claimed that Dasuki routed N1.22bn out of the N2.26bn, to Fayose through a former Minister of State for Defence, Musiliu Obanikoro.

    But the lawyer approached the court stating that the EFCC misrepresented facts to obtain the order and urged Justice Anka to lift the order.

    The SAN contended that the EFCC’s action was unconstitutional, had no legal justification and was a gross violation of sections 36, 37 and 41 of the 1999 Constitution.

    But in Wednesday’s counter affidavit deposed to by EFCC counsel, Idris Mohammed, the commission stated that Fayose was aware that Justice Mohammed Idris of the Federal High Court had placed a temporary restriction on his account, but the governor, through Ozekhome, went before Justice Taiwo Taiwo of the Ado Ekiti Division of the Federal High Court to obtain an order to unfreeze the account.

    The prosecutor said even though Fayose was aware that the commission immediately appealed Justice Taiwo’s ruling, the governor still went ahead to dissipate part of the contentious funds, paying N75m to Ozekhome who helped him to secure Justice Taiwo’s unfreezing order.

    The EFCC claimed that Ozekhome ought to have “reasonably known that the N75m was transferred to him” from Fayose’s account, which the EFCC claimed was used to retain proceeds of crime and alleged kickbacks from some contractors in Ekiti State.

    It urged Justice Anka not to unfreeze Ozekhome’s account.

    Justice Anka adjourned till March 7, for hearing.

    [news_box style=”two_cols” display=”tag” link_target=”_blank” tag=”Obanikoro” count=”8″ show_more=”on” show_more_type=”link”]

  • Court strikes out 6 counts in charge against Kanu, others

    Court strikes out 6 counts in charge against Kanu, others

    …Fixes March 20 for commencement of trial on remaining 5 counts

     

    Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court in Abuja Wednesday struck out six of the 11 counts contained in the charge filed against the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu and three others.

    Justice Nyako, in a ruling yesterday, held that the six counts were not supported by the proof of evidence the prosecution submitted in court to support the charge it filed against Kanu and others.

    The other three are: Chidiebere Onwudiwe, Benjamin Madubugwu and a Field Maintenance Engineer attached to the MTN, David Nwawuisi.

    The ruling was on separate notices of objection filed by Kanu, Onwudiwe and Nwawuisi, challenging the validity of the six counts.

    Justice Nyako said the proof of evidence failed to disclose any prima facie case against the defendants in relation to the six counts.

    The six counts are 3, 5, 7, 9, 10 and 11 in which they were charged with managing unlawful organisation, intention to manufacture Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) to be used against some Nigerian security agents and alleged improper importation of a radio transmitter.

    Justice Nyako was of the view that the allegation in Count 3 relating to “managing of unlawful society punishable under section 63 of the Criminal Code Act” could not be substantiated by the proof of evidence.

    She said the proof of evidence failed to show that IPOB was indeed an unlawful organisation, noting that the prosecution failed to show that IPOB had been proscribed or that it was not registered either in Nigeria or London.

    The judge said the alleged, “improper importation of goods contrary to section 47(1) (a) (i) of the Customs and Excise Management Act” levelled against Kanu in Count 5 did not disclose the elements of the alleged offence bordering on the importation of a Radio Transmitter known as TRAM 50L.

    The judge held that the allegation in Count 7 accusing Madubugwu of “managing of unlawful society punishable under section 63 of the Criminal Code Act” by accepting and keeping a container housing the radio transmitter which he allegedly knew was to be used for Radio Biafra, also did not disclose any element of the alleged crime.

    She said count 9 in which sense Onwudiwe and Nwawuisi were charged with “conspiracy to commit treasonble felony contrary to Section 516 of the Criminal Code Act” did not disclose the elements of the alleged crime.

    Justice Nyako said the count failed to disclose which of the acts of installation of the transmitter on the MTN mast site at Ogui Road, near St. Michale Church, Enugu State, and the agreement on the payment of N150,000 was the act that constituted the offence of conspiracy to commit treasonable felony.

    The judge also struck out Count 10, which accused Nwawuisi was accused of engaging in the “management of unlawful society punishable under section 63 of the Criminal Code Act”.

    The prosecution had accused Nwawuisi of the offence for allegedly permitting the installation of Radio Biafra transmitter on the MTN mast for the purpose of propagating the objective of IPOB after being paid the sum of N150,000 by Onwudiwe.

    Justice Nyako said the count could not stand because the proof that the IPOB was an unlawful society was not provided in the proof.

    The judge also struck out Count 11, which accused Onwudiwe of “knowingly committing an act preparatory to an act of terrorism” by allegedly “carrying out research for the purpose of identifying and gathering of improvised explosive device-making materials to be used gainst Nigerian security operatives carrying out their lawful duties”.

    The prosecution alleged in the count that Onwudiwe had by the act, committed an offence of “terrorism contrary to section 2(1)(a) of Terrorism (Prevention) Amendment Act 2011 as amended in 2013”.

    The judge agreed with the defence that since the offence only had to do with an intention to commit a particular act, it was the magistrate court that had the jurisdiction to entertain such charge.

    The judge however sustained Counts 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8.

    They are, in count 1, charged with “conspiracy to commit treasonable felony contrary to Section 516 of the Criminal Code act” by conspiring among themselves to broadcast on Radio Biafra “for states in the South-East and South-South zones and other communities in Kogi and Benue states to secede from the Federal Republic of Nigeria with a view to constituting same into Republic of Biafra”.

    In count 2, Kanu is charged with treasonable felony by broadcasting in London between 2014 and 2015, calling for the secession of Republic of Biafra from Nigeria.

    Count 4 accused Kanu of “publication of defamatory matter contrary to section 375 of the Criminal Code Act” by referring to the then Maj-Gen. Muhammadu Buhari (retd) and now President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as “a paedophile, a terrorist, an idiot, and an embodiment of evil” in a broadcast on Radio Biafra on April 28, 2015.

    Count 6 accused Kanu of “improper importation of goods contrary to section 47(2)(a) of the Customs and Excise Management Act” by allegedly concealing a radio transmitter in a container of used household items and declaring the transmitter as part of the used household items.

    Count 8 accused Madubugwu of being in possession of one Emerald Magnum Pump Action Gun with serial number TS 870 – 113 – 0046 and one Delta Magnum Pump Action Gun with serial number 501 as well as 41 cartridges/ammunition without lawful authority or licence, was also sustained.

    Madubugwu was said to been caught with the firearms at his house in Ubulusuzor in Ihiala Local Government Area of Anambra State in October 2015.

    After the judge’s ruling, the defendants were re-arraigned on the remaining five counts, to which they pleaded not guilty.

    The defence team indicated its detention to file fresh bail applications, their earlier ones having been rejected by the judge.

    Justice Nyako said the defence was at liberty to file fresh bail application at any time, but must be prepared for the commencement of trial on the next date. She adjourned to March 20.

  • Court orders Umar to sign N50m bond before foreign trip

    Court orders Umar to sign N50m bond before foreign trip

    Justice John Tsoho of the Federal High Court, Abuja Tuesday granted permission to a former ex-member of the Presidential Committee investigating procurement of arms and equipment in the Armed Forces, retired Air Commodore Mohammed Dikko Umar to travel to South Africa for two months on medical ground.

    The judge however said he must first sign a bond of N50million in the name of the court’s Registrar before his seized international passport could be released by the court to serve as guarantee that he will return to face his on-going trial.

    Justice Tsoho, in a ruling on an application by Umar for leave to travel to Sandton, South Africa on medical grounds, held that he was convinced that there was the need to allow the applicant attends to his health to enable him to be fit to stand trial.

    The judge rejected the objection raised by the prosecution lawyer, Shuaibu Labaran, but said he was convinced, based on a medical report from the National Hospital, Abuja, that Umar needed medical attention, which is not available in Nigeria and West Africa.

    The medical report, labelled “Exhibit A2”, dated February 14, 2017, was signed by Dr. Bello Abubakar Mohammed, a Senior Consultant in Clinical Oncology.

    The judge said: “In my humble opinion, the exhibit constitutes material evidence of the applicant’s medical condition, requiring urgent medical attention outside Nigeria and West Africa. Paragraph 5 of Exhibit A2 specifically says that investigation and treatment options for the applicant are not available in Nigeria and even in West Africa.

    “It is instructive that Exhibit A2is from the National Hospital, Abuja, which is supposed to be a reputable and prestigious government-owned tertiary health institution in Nigeria. Therefore, a document emanating from it should command some credibility.

    “While the respondent, in its counter-affidavit and written address, maintained that the applicant’s assertion is untrue, it has not produced any evidence to contradict of discredit that furnished by the applicant, especially the documentary evidence.

    “In the circumstance, I am more disposed to accepting the position presented by the applicant. Given the circumstance of this application, I find it apt to endorse the sentiment that it is a healthy person, and indeed, a living person that can stand trial.

    “I therefore do not see what the respondent stands to gain if the applicant should become medically incapacitated with the result of his trial being truncated.

    “Rather than have such a situation, I honestly believe that it is better the applicant gets the opportunity to receive medical attention in the hope that he will be physically and mentally fit to stand trial to the end even though some delay may be experienced,” Justice Tsoho said.

    He adjourned to May 18 for the commencement of trial.

    Umar and his company, Easy Jet Integrated Services Limited are being tried on a four-count amended charge of money laundering and unlawful possession of firearms and official documents.

    Umar and his company are accused of conspiracy and accepting $1,030,000 in cash from a firm, Worldwide Consortium PTY Ltd, “as payment for flight services without going through a financial institution as required by law.

    They have, by so doing, committed money laundering, contrary to sections 18 (a) and 16(1)(d) of the Money Laundering Act 2011 and punishable under Section 16(2)(b) of the Act.

    Umar was accused of being in illegal possession of two pump action guns (marked: SBSG Magnum 397 and SBGS Interpress 09-1573) between June 1, 2011 and June 19, 2016 without valid licenses and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 4 of the Firearms Act 2004 and punishable under Section 27(1)(b)(i) of the act.

    He was also accused of having at his No: 4 Lungi Close, Mississippi, Maitama, Abuja home “classified/official documents without lawful authority and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 1(1)(b) of the Official Secret Act and punishable under Section 7(1)(a) of the same Act.”

     

  • Kogi: Court dismisses suit on Falake’s nomination

    Kogi: Court dismisses suit on Falake’s nomination

    The Federal High Court in Lagos has dismissed a suit by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and its member Mutiu Okunola challenging Mr James Faleke’s nomination as the All Progressives Congress (APC) Deputy Governorship candidate in Kogi State.

    The suit is on the ground that Faleke’s nomination constitutes double nomination as he retains his seat as a member of the House of Representative representing Ikeja Federal Constituency in Lagos.

    The plaintiffs asked the court to compel Faleke to vacate his seat as a member of the House.

    Okunola sought a declaration that Faleke’s nomination by APC as its candidate for the House of Representatives’ election of March 28, 2015 to represent Federal Constituency 1, Ikeja in Lagos State, and his subsequent nomination as deputy governorship candidate for the November 21, 2015, gubernatorial election of Kogi State, under the Ekinrin Ade Ward of Ijumu Local Government Area amounted to double nominations and, therefore, unconstitutional.

    Okunola and PDP sought a declaration that the transfer of Faleke’s membership from Lagos to Kogi by INEC automatically terminated Faleke’s membership of the Ikeja Federal Constituency and consequently extinguishes his continued representation of the Constituency in the House.

    But, the defendants said the subject matter of the action was academic as it was already decided at the election tribunal and the Court of Appeal where the plaintiffs lost.

    In its February 21 judgment, Justice Abdulazeez Anka held that the intention of the draftsmen as it relates to Section 37 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) is to the effect that double nomination is as regards one candidate being nominated to contest an election under two different political parties.

    The judge said where a candidate is nominated for an election while still holding an elective position under the same political party does not amount to double nomination.

    The court held that the facts of the case do not fit into the intendment of Section 37 of the Electoral Act as Faleke was nominated from the same political party and not different political parties.

    According to the judge, only a member of the same political party that made the nomination can challenge the nomination of a candidate.

    He held that it was an administrative function of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), which is the third defendant, to register voters and transfer their data from one constituency to another as provided by Section 13 of the Electoral Act.

    Justice Anka held that the issue of whether the transfer of data by INEC of a registered voter from one constituency to another can constitute a ground to disbar a person from holding an office was academic as no law was provided by the plaintiffs’ counsel to show that a candidate or a voter whose data has been transferred by INEC would be disbarred from continuing to hold the office.

    According to the judge, Faleke’s nomination as the deputy governorship candidate to the late Abubakar Audu in the Kogi election does not amount to double/multiple nomination and therefore not illegal.

    He added that the plaintiffs’ action is non-justiciable, while Okunola lacks the locus standi to institute the action.

    “The plaintiffs’ counsel intentionally avoided the provisions of section 68 (1) (d) of the constitution while placing heavy reliance on s. 68 (1)(b) of the constitution,” the judge held.

    According to the judge, since the plaintiffs’ lost at the lower tribunal and the Court of Appeal, the suit was just another attempt at a bite at the cherry.

    Justice Anka dismissed the suit in its entirety.

     

  • Judge withdraws from Adegboruwa’s case

    Judge withdraws from Adegboruwa’s case

    Justice Oluremi Oguntoyibo of the Federal High Court in Lagos Friday withdrew from the trial of activist-lawyer Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa.

    She said would return the case file to the Chief Judge, Justice Ibrahim Auta, for re-assignment to another judge.

    Justice Oguntoyibo said she was withdrawing from the case for “personal reasons.”

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) arraigned Adegboruwa last May 12 for allegedly dealing in a seized property.

    Two witnesses have testified in the case out of nine listed by the EFCC.

    The human rights lawyer was charged under Section 32 (1) of the EFCC Establishment Act 2004.

    It reads: “Any person who, without due authorisation by the Commission, deals with, sells or otherwise disposes of any property or assets which is the subject of an attachment, interim order or final order, commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term of five years without the option of a fine.”

    The commission said Adegboruwa and Jonathan Udeagbala, said to be at large, committed the alleged offence on August 13, 2013 in Lagos.

    The defendant allegedly conspired to lease the property at House 105, NICON Town Estate, Lekki.

    EFCC said the property was a “subject of interim orders of attachment made by Justice Christopher Balogun of the Lagos State High Court” on June 18, 2012.

    Adegboruwa allegedly leased the property to Shelf Drilling Nigeria Limited for N61, 631,944.65, which was credited to his Zenith Bank account, with number 1010240758.

    The lawyer pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied the allegation, saying there could not have been a freezing order on the property because the substantive case had been dismissed.

    With Justice Oguntoyibo’s withdrawal, it means the case may begin afresh before a new judge.

    Adegboruwa had last week withdrawn a suit he filed at the court to restrain Mr Ibrahmi Magu from parading himself as the Acting EFCC Chairman.

    The lawyer said he was dropping the case in order to encourage Magu in the anti-corruption campaign.

    Adegboruwa had sought an order “directing the fourth defendant, Ibrahim Magu, to vacate, relinquish and surrender his office as Acting Chairman of the EFCC.”

  • EFCC vs Ozekhome: Judge orders service of hearing notice 

    EFCC vs Ozekhome: Judge orders service of hearing notice 

    The Federal High Court in Lagos Thursday fixed March 2 for hearing in a suit by human rights lawyer Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN) seeking to vacate the order freezing his firm’s account.

    Justice Abdulazeez Anka ordered that a hearing notice be issued to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

    He had on February 7 ordered a temporary forfeiture of N75million found in the Guarantee Trust Bank account following an application by the EFCC.

    The commission had no representation Thursday.

    Ozekhome said the suit was filed on February 14 and served on EFCC on February 20.

    Justice Anka said the commission was still within time to respond.

    “They’re entitled to seven days. Their time has not lapsed. Let’s give them their time. So we’ll give them seven days,” he said.

    Ozekhome asked for the earliest date for hearing “because of the urgency of the case.”

    He is praying for an order discharging and/or vacating forthwith, the interim ex-parte order of forfeiture to freeze or attach the money for 120 days.

    Ozekhome said EFCC did not disclose the fact that Justice Taiwo O. Taiwo of the Federal High Court in Ado Ekiti had defrozen the account of Ekiti State Governor Ayo Fayose account, thereby allowing the governor to operate it, before he transferred N75 million to the account of Mike Ozekhome Chambers.

    Ozekhome said as at the time Fayose transferred the money, there was no order freezing Fayose’s account.

    Ozekhome said the rules regulating ex-parte applications were blatantly violated by the EFCC in obtaining the order.

    The SAN sought an order restraining the Federal Government and the EFCC, whether by themselves or their agents from dealing in anyway and manner with his operation or his proprietary rights to the account.

    Ozekhome said EFCC’s application was filed in bad faith and because of his “strong and uncompromising stance against some of the obnoxious anti-masses policies of the present administration and the judicial victories he has so far secured against the EFCC in different courts in Nigeria”.

    According to him, the action is unconstitutional as it offends sections 36, 37 and 41 of the 1999 Constitution as there was no legal justification for EFCC’s action.

    “The Applicant’s family, staff, dependants, associates, business and livelihood will greatly suffer, and are already suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable damage if this application is not granted, and the blockade or freezing of the account lifted immediately.

    “The interest of justice demands that these prayers be granted as it will ensure that the Applicant and his family, staff, associates, livelihood, dependants and business do not suffer untold and irreparable damages,” Ozekhome said.

    He said the N75million was part-payment of legal fees from Ekiti State Governor Ayodele Fayode.

    “The issue of whether or not the funds in Governor Fayose’s account from which the N75 Million was posted to Mike Ozekhome’s Chambers GT Bank account is suspected proceed of crime is currently on appeal as filed and entered by the self same Counsel to the respondent herein, Mr. Rotimi Oyedepo Iseoluwa,” Ozekhome said.

    Justice Anka adjourntill March 2.

  • Belgore: EFCC’s prosecutor’s absence stalls trial

    The absence of the EFCC prosecutor, Mr Rotimi Oyedepo, on Thursday stalled the trial byFederal High Court

    Belgore is being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) alongside a former Minister of National Planning, Prof Abubakar Suleiman.

    The accused are standing trial before Justice Mohammed Aikawa on a five-count charge bordering on money laundering to the tune of N450 million.

    On Wednesday, a lawyer from the EFCC, Mr Nkereuwem Anana, had informed the court that the prosecutor, Mr Rotimi Oyedepo, was `held up’ on his way to the court because of a fault in his vehicle.

    Anana said the first prosecution witness, was also on his way from Ekiti, and urged prayed the judge to stand down the case to enable the prosecution arrive.

    In response, defence counsel, Mr Ebun Shofunde (SAN), raised an objection for a stand down on the grounds that he had another case for the day.

    He argued that the court could not wait for a witness, who was still on his way, and urged the court to adjourn the case.

    The judge held that he would not stand the case down at the instance of a witness when there were 29 other cases on his cause list for the day.

    Aikawa then urged the prosecution to show more seriousness so that the case could be disposed of as soon as possible.

    Consequently, the judge adjourned the case to March 13 and March 14 for definite trial.

    The EFCC had charged the accused with conspiracy to directly take possession of N450 million which they reasonably ought to have known formed part of the proceeds of an unlawful act.

    The commission said that they committed the offence on March 27, 2015.

    On the second count, the EFCC said that the accused directly took possession of the sum of N450 million, while on the third count, the accused were said to have conspired to make cash payment of the sum without going through a financial institution.

    On counts four and five, they were accused of making cash payment of N450 million to one Sheriff Shagaya without going through a financial institution.

    The offences, according to the EFCC, contravene the provisions of Section 15, 15(3), 16, 16(2) 18(a) and 18 (d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibitions) (Amendment) Act, 2012.

    The accused had pleaded not guilty to all the counts, while the court granted them bail on self-recognition.

  • Obanikoro, family sue EFCC for N100m 

    Obanikoro, family sue EFCC for N100m 

    Senator Musiliu Obanikoro and his family have sued the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) at the Federal High Court in Lagos over the seizure and detention of their property.

    They are seeking a declaration that the forceful seizure of their personal effects constitutes a gross violation of their rights.

    The applicants are praying for an order setting aside the forceful detention of their properties last June 14.

    They demanded an “unreserved public apology”, as well as N100 million as general damages from EFCC.

    The Obanikoros also sought an order restraining EFCC from arresting, detaining or harassing them or entering their premises again to seize their properties.

    The applicants include Obanikoro’s wife Moroophat, his sons Gbolahon, Babajide and wife Fati.

    EFCC claimed Obanikoro received suspicious payments from the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA) through companies linked to the family.

    For instance, the commission said $1,018,000 was transferred from the ONSA to Mob Integrated Services on March 18, 2015.

    But, the family, though their lawyer Lawal Pedro (SAN), said the documents and properties EFCC seized “have nothing to do with the ONSA.”

    They claimed that the commission violated Regulation 13 of the EFCC (Enforcement Regulation) 2010 which provides that it shall apply and obtain a court order to enter and search any premises.

    However, EFCC has urged the court to dismiss the suit, insisting that it acted within the law.

    Justice Abdulazeez Anka adjourned until March 28 for ruling.

  • Bribery allegation against Buhari malicious – Presidency

    Bribery allegation against Buhari malicious – Presidency

    The Presidency on Wednesday described the bribery allegation against President Muhammadu Buhari as malicious, utterly ridiculous, and revolting.

    A statement by the Special Adviser on media and publicity, Femi Adesina, disclosed that a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Kola Awodein, has reacted to news making the rounds that he gave Justice Niyi Ademola of the Federal High Court, currently standing trial for alleged corruption, the sum of N500, 000.00 at the behest of President Muhammadu Buhari, during the contrived certificate issue affecting the then presidential candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC).

    He said “Mr Awodein (SAN) describes the allegation as ‘malicious, utterly ridiculous, and revolting,’ in a statement released Wednesday.

    He recalled that President Buhari challenged the elections of 2003, 2007, and 2011, up to the Supreme Court, and not once was he named as trying to compromise any Judge, even though some of them were his schoolmates, or contemporary, at one time or the other.

    In keeping with the President’s time-tested reputation as a man of truth and integrity, he said that any attempt to sully that reputation is bound to fail, inexorably.

    According to him, the President was in no way linked with Justice Ademola.

    Awodein’s statement reads: “I am constrained to make in absolute good faith , in good conscience and in the interest of justice and fair play the following very short statement on account of the distorted news story currently being peddled as  affecting the person of Mr. President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and  my good and very noble self.

    “The very simple and plain facts are as follows:

    “I have known as a friend and for well over 35 years Mr. Justice Niyi Ademola, a notorious fact known to majority of lawyers who have practiced especially in Lagos for over that same period more or less and also to so many other professionals of other disciplines and other prominent and not so prominent Nigerians.

    “It is a fact that the sum of money mentioned was personally paid by me as a friend to Mr. Justice Ademola as a personal gift, as our custom well recognizes and demands, on the occasion of his daughter’s High Society wedding solemnized at the Cathedral Church of Christ, Marina, Lagos, on the 9th of May 2015, which I attended in person.

    “I was fully convinced then, as I remain today, that I could do no less as a friend of longstanding to fairly reasonably support him on that memorable occasion of his daughter’s wedding.

    “Anyone and everyone who knows me would readily and unquestionably testify that I am and have always been a man of impeccable integrity on and off the Courts and that such a record speaks always loudly for itself.

    “I would conclude by stating categorically and without any equivocation that  ANY link whatsoever with Mr. President, or any court case or cases, of my personal gift from my personal resources delivered to Justice  Niyi Ademola by myself on that occasion or any suggestion whatsoever that it was anything but such a gift or that it ever came from Mr. President or at his instance or that I was acting, under any circumstances, on his behalf is most malicious, utterly ridiculous and in very poor and revolting taste and most undeserving of any further comments,” he stated.

  • Court dismisses ex-NIMASA D-G’s no–case submission

    Court dismisses ex-NIMASA D-G’s no–case submission

    The Federal High Court in Lagos Thursday dismissed a no-case submission made by former Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) acting Director-General Calistus Obi.

    Justice Mojisola Olatoregun ordered him to open his defence.

    A no-case submission is a term whereby a defendant seeks acquittal without having to present a defence.

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) arraigned Obi last April on eight counts of converting N378, 810,000 from NIMASA.

    He was charged along with Dismass Alu Adoon, Grand Pact Limited and Global Sea Investment Limited.

    His lawyer, Mr Wale Akoni (SAN), urged the court to hold that the prosecution did not made out a prima facie (obvious) case to secure the conviction.

    Counsel to the second accused, Dr Joseph Nwobike (SAN), also urged the court to uphold the no-case submission of his client and discharge him.

    But, EFCC’s prosecutor, Mr Rotimi Oyedepo, objected to the no-case submissions and urged the court to call upon the accused to enter their defence.

    Ruling, Justice Olatoregun held: “The central issue to consider having gone through the submissions on all sides is whether there is no legally admissible evidence linking the defendants with the commission of the offence of conversion of money belonging to NIMASA, or that the evidence has been discredited by cross-examination, or so manifestly unreliable that no reasonable tribunal or court can act on it as establishing the criminal guilt of the defendant.

    “I cannot at this stage go into evaluation of the evidence before me or whether a particular document was wrongly admitted; the key question is whether those evidence can justifiably secure the conviction of the defendants

    “I have only the evidence of the prosecution and so, can any reasonable tribunal or judge honestly say that from the evidence so far adduced by prosecution, either directly or circumstantially, that the defendants should not be called upon to make an explanation as regards their conducts? My answer is No.

    “I must admit that there is a prima facie case made out against the defendants; this must be distinguished from the proof of the guilt of the defendants, a conclusion which I can only arrive at, at the end of the case, when the court has to find out whether the defendant is guilty or not. It is for now immaterial whether or not I believe the evidence of the prosecution; for now, the credibility of the witness does not arise

    “I have juxtaposed the evidence provided by the prosecution in section 15 (1) and 18 (a) of the Money Laundering and Prohibition Act and the essential element of the offences, and I am satisfied that the defendants has a reason to be called upon to place their defence before the court.

    “The respective submissions on no case by the defence is hereby over ruled, and I rely on the cases of Obasohan v Federal Government, as well as Amadi vs Federal Government,” she held

    The judge adjourned until March 24 and 27.