Tag: Federal High Court

  • Appeal Court adjourns Cheveron’s appeal against Britannia-U

    Appeal Court adjourns Cheveron’s appeal against Britannia-U

    The Court of Appeal sitting in Lagos will on November 22 hear an appeal on whether the Federal High Court can assume jurisdiction in a suit by Britannia-U Nigeria Limited against Chevron Nigerian Limited.

    Britannia-U is praying the lower court to restrain Chevron from divesting its interests in Oil Mining Leases (OML) 52, 53 and 55 to Seplat Petroleum Development Company Limited.

    The appellate court refused to entertain the appellants’ (Chevron and BNP Paribas SecuritiesCorp’s) motion for stay of proceedings. It said it would abide the outcome ofthe main appeal.

    The court, however, granted the appellants’ motion for extension of time to compile and transmit additional records of appeal and motion for leave to appeal on grounds other than law, as well as leave to amend their Notice of Appeal.

    The appellants were given seven days to file their amended Notice of Appeal. Brittania-U’s counsel withdrew an application seeking todismiss the appeal for want of diligent prosecution.

    Britannia-U had through its lawyers, Mr.Ricky Tarfa (SAN) and Abiodun Owonikoko (SAN), sued Chevron in 2013 along withfour others, namely Chevron USA Inc, BNP Paribas Securities Corp., Mr. HermantPetel and Seplat Petroleum.

    The Federal High Court had adjourned the suit sine die (till further notice) due to several appeals, one of which was decided by the Supreme Court on January 29.

    Brittania-U’s motion on notice for interlocutory injunctionagainst the defendants are still pending at the Federal High Court.

    Chevron had offered for sale OMLs 52, 53 and 55 and invited bids from interested firms. The assets’ sale became controversial after Chevron allegedly failed to make a public announcement of a winner, a reserve bidder and unsuccessful bids.

    It then allegedly turned its back on the highest bidder, Brittania-U, and began to deal with Seplat behind the scene.

    Brittania-U went to court to contest Chevron’s action of not declaring it winner after it posted a $1.67 billion bid for the three assets,an amount later revised to $1.015 billion after both companies’ officials met in Houston, United States.

    Seplat was said to have posted a bid of $630 million for the same assets.

     

  • Biafra: Kanu, associates accuse second judge of bias

    Biafra: Kanu, associates accuse second judge of bias

    Pro-Biafra agitator, Nnamdi Kanu and two of his associates have accused a judge of the Federal High Court, Abuja, Justice James Tsoho, of bias.

    The three, who were arraigned before the judge on January 20 this year on charges of treasonable felony, have also applied for the transfer of the case to a new judge.

    These are contained in the notice of appeal and motion of stay of proceedings pending appeal filed by the three defendants Wednesday.

    This is the second time the three will be expressing doubt about the ability of their trial judge to endure justice and fairness in their trial.

    On December 23 last year, Kanu told Justice Ahmed Mohammed (also of the Federal High Court), before who they were to be arraigned, that he was not confident that the judge would ensure justice and would not be bias.

    Kanu, who said he got information that the judge cannot ensure justice in his trial, demanded that the case be transferred to another judge.

    Based on Kanu’s statement, Justice Mohammed withdrew from the case and returned the case file to the court’s Chief Judge, Justice Ibrahim Auta, who later reassigned the case to Tsoho.

    Kanu and two others were arraigned before Justice Tsoho on six counts of treasonable felony, unlawful possession of firearms and other offences bordering on their agitation for secession ‎of the Republic of Biafra from Nigeria.

    On March 7, Justice Tsoho ruled on an oral application by the prosecution to allow the shielding of its witnesses from public glare in view of threat to their lives.

    The judge had, in an earlier ruling rejected the prosecution’s request to have its witnesses wear mask. But the judge varied that order on Monday and aggreed to the shielding of the prosecution’s witness, a decision the defendants represented by Chuks Muoma (SAN), expressed discomfort.

    Muoma, who reluctantly agreed to the court’s decision, insisted on a prior demonstration of the witness’ shielding procedure before it could be applied.

    Wednesday, the procedure was demonstrated behind the public, but the prosecution witness was not available, following which Muoma informed the court about the notice of appeal and motion for stay of proceedings he filed for the defendants.

    Prosecution lawyer, Muhammad Diri acknowledged being served with the two processes filed by the defendants and sought time to respond.

    In their notice of appeal, Kanu and others want the Court of Appeal to set aside Justice Tsoho’s  “ruling/order of th learned trial judge, dated March 7, 2015.

    “An order of this honourable court directing the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court to transfer the trial hearing of the substantive charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/383/15, currently pending before Justice J. Tsoho to another judge of the Federal High Court for trial.”

    Among their grounds of appeal include  that the judge erred in law “when having refused the application for the witnesses of the prosecution to testified behind screens, or masked” on February 19, 2016, “suddenly varied the said order in the ruling delivered on March 7, 2016, on a mere oral application by the respondent”.

    The defendants argued that the judge granted the prosecution’s oral application without jurisdiction, and thereby “occasioning a miscarriage of justice”.

    They stated that the particulars of the judge’s error include giving an order in violation of their right to fair hearing and therefore betrayed his alleged bias in the handling of the case.

    “There is manifest bias on the part of the learned trial judge in the conduct of this case, which is apparent in the unwholesome manner his order was reviewed to give undue advantage to the prosecution, in flagrant violation of the appellants’ right to fair trial, as constitutionally guaranteed under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended),” the defendants said.

    They raised similar issues in an affidavit filed in support of their application for stay of proceedings, which was deposed to by a lawyer in their defence team, Emmanuel Ayoola

    They stated in the affidavit that there was no formal written application by the learned Director of Public Prosecutions requesting variation of the order of court made on February 19, 2016.

    “That by granting the learned Director of Public Prosecution’s application, this honourable court sat on appeal over its own ruling/order, dated February 19, 2016.

    “That this honourable court has no jurisdiction to re-litigate on issue it had already decided.

    “That the court had manifested serious bias in the conduct of this trial, which is gravely impeding the defendants’ constitutional rights to fair hearing/trial.”

    Justice Tsoho has adjourned to April 4 for the hearing of the motion for stay of proceeding pending appeal.

  • Photo: Badeh appears in court

    Photo: Badeh appears in court

    Former Chief of Defence Staff, Air Chief  Marshal Alex Badeh (rtd), Arriving at the Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday
    Former Chief of Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshal Alex Badeh (rtd), Arriving at the Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday
    Former Chief of Defence Staff, Air Chief  Marshal Alex Badeh (rtd), Arriving at the Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday
    Former Chief of Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshal Alex Badeh (rtd), Arriving at the Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday
    Former Chief of Defence Staff, Air Chief  Marshal Alex Badeh (rtd), Arriving at the Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday
    Former Chief of Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshal Alex Badeh (rtd), Arriving at the Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday
    Former Chief of Defence Staff, Air Chief  Marshal Alex Badeh (rtd), Arriving at the Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday
    Former Chief of Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshal Alex Badeh (rtd), Arriving at the Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday
     Former Chief of Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshal Alex Badeh(right),with National Publicity Secretary of the People’s Democratic Party(PDP),Chief Oliseh  Metuh at the Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday
    Former Chief of Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshal Alex Badeh(right),with National Publicity Secretary of the People’s Democratic Party(PDP),Chief Oliseh Metuh at the Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday
    Former Chief of Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshal Alex Badeh (rtd), at the Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday
    Former Chief of Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshal Alex Badeh (rtd), at the Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday
  • UNN graduate jailed seven years for selling fake drugs

    UNN graduate jailed seven years for selling fake drugs

    A 35-year-old woman, Clara Onah, was Wednesday sentenced to seven years in prison by the Federal High Court, Lagos for selling fake drugs.

    Onah, from Enugu State, was charged by the National Agency for Food, Drugs, Administration and Control (NAFDAC) on behalf of the Federal Government.

    A graduate of Microbiology of the University of Nigeria, Nsukka and a post-graduate student of Mass Communication, Onah resides at No 12, Mosalashi St., Alagbado Lagos.

    She was arraigned on February 15 and pleaded guilty to a five-count charge bordering on possession and sale of fake drugs, offences committed on January 26.

    The prosecutor Mr. Shamaki Umar had told the court that the accused sold fake brand of 200 mg of Amazon Amagyl Metronidazole tablets to members of the public.

    The accused was remanded in prison pending the review of facts.

    Wednesday, Umar reviewed the facts of the case and presented the laboratory analysis of the confiscated drugs which showed that they were fake and contained 20 rather than 200 milligrams

    The convict’s counsel Mr. Chinedu Moore in his allocutus pleaded for leniency and urged the court to temper justice with mercy. He submitted that apart from the fact that she was sick, she was also a first time offender who did not have the intent to manufacture or sell fake drugs.

    Amidst sobs the woman herself also pleaded for mercy, saying she didn’t know the drugs were fake.

    But the prosecutor urged the court to award her the maximum sentence according to the law.

    He said: “When she was asked to show the operatives of NAFDAC where the drugs were being manufactured, she took them to an unknown address that does not exist. When they eventually traced her residence, they discovered items she used in manufacturing the drugs such as weighing scales and labels.

    “With all intent and purposes my lord, she was manufacturing them herself. Therefore, I urge my lord to award maximum sentence as provided by law so as to serve as deterrent to others.”

    In his judgment, Justice (Prof.) Chuka Obiozor said: “I will give you a second chance as a first offender but those who took your drugs and died had no second chance”.

    He reprimanded the convict for being a 2:1 graduate of the University of Nigeria, Nsukka who chose to deal on fake drugs instead of staying in the village to find something worthy to do, if she could not get a decent job in Lagos.

    The judge said: “Clara Onah, you are hereby sentenced to seven years imprisonment at the women wing of the Kirikiri Maximum Prison on each of the count charges. They are to run concurrently starting from January 26, when you were arrested and detained.

    “The convict was also fined N50,000 on count five. The prosecution should hold on to the exhibits pending the elapse of the time of appeal of this judgment. At the elapse of appeal window, the prosecution should destroy it.”

    The offences contravened the provisions of section 1(1) (a), 3, and 3 (1) of the Counterfeit and Fake Drugs Unwholesome Processed Foods, (Miscellaneous Provision) Act Cap 34, Laws of the Federation, 2004.

  • Dokpesi: Court fixes April 28 for commencement of trial  

    Dokpesi: Court fixes April 28 for commencement of trial  

    A Federal High Court in Abuja Wednesday fixed April 28 for the commencement of trial in the case against businessman, Raymond Dokpesi and his company, Daar Investment and Holdings Limited.

    They were arraigned before the court on February 17 on a six count charge bordering on alleged procurement fraud and breach of public trust to the tune of N2.1 billion.

    They were said to have received N2.1billion from the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA) between October 2014 and March 2015, which was diverted to fund the presidential campaign of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), an act said to be a breach of provisions of the Public Procurement Act, Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act.

    Justice James Tsoho fixed the date Wednesday after lawyers to parties agreed to return on April 28 following their inability to agree on the need to allow the commencement of trial.

    When the case was called, lawyer to Dokpesi and his company, Wole Olanipekun (SAN) sought clarification from the judge on the position of the case in view of media reports, which quoted the judge as saying the case was assigned to him in error and that it had been sent back to the earlier trial judge.

    Justice Tsoho explained that although he learnt the case and other similar ones were sent to his court in error, he has now been allowed to continue to hear the Dokpesi case because “steps have been taken.”

    He said unlike the one involving former Head of Civil Service of the Federation, Steven Oronsaye, who had not been re-arraigned before him, steps have been taken in the Dokpesi case, where the defendants have been re-arraigned.

    Shortly after the judge’s explanation, prosecution lawyer, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) told the court he was ready for trial and that his first witness was in court. As he made move to invite the witness, Olanipekun sprang up, and queried the legitimacy of the additional proof of evidence just filed by the prosecution.

    He said the bundle of documents was not served on him on time and that it was not properly filed before the court because the prosecution did not first obtain the court’s permission to file additional proof.

    Olanipekun also complained about the quality of the documents, which were mainly written statements of additional witnesses to be called by the prosecution. He noted that copies of the states in the proof served on him were not legible.

    Responding, Jacobs insisted that the additional proof of evidence was properly filed as the prosecution, under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 is not required to first obtain the court’s permission before filing proof.

    “The ACJA, in section 379 and 380 have made provisions as to the filing of proof of evidence. In Section 379(2) the prosecution is given the discretion to file additional proof at any time before judgment, without constraints or inhibition. No leave is required

    “This provision is in line with the decision of the Supreme Court in Nguru and the State: 2007 3 NWLR part 771 page 304. The provision requires the prosecution to merely inform the court about the filing of the proof of evidence, but not to first seek the court’s leave,” Jacobs said.

    He however agreed to provide Olanipekun with more legible copies of the documents as requested.

    The judge, at that point asked parties to agree on a convenient date for the commencement of trial. They later agreed to return on April 28.

  •  Court to rule on Metuh’s no-case-submission March 9

     Court to rule on Metuh’s no-case-submission March 9

    The Federal High Court, Abuja, Thursday reserved ruling till March 9 on a no-case-submission filed by Olisa Metuh, the National Publicity Secretary of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    Metuh filed a no-case-submission in the alleged Money Laundering charges brought by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

    NAN reports that the Judge, Justice Okon Abang, reserved the date after counsel to the parties adopted their written addresses.

    Abang said that the court’s mandate to either give ruling or deliver judgment on the motion would depend on the merit of the submissions.

    “In the circumstance, the court can only rule if the motion fails and if the motion succeeds the court can only deliver judgment,’’ he said.

    He said that if the motion fails the defendants would open their cases, but if they succeed it means striking out the charges and discharging and acquitting the defendants.

    According to him, depending on which of the two scenarios play out, the court will have to adjourn its decision till March 9.

    Earlier, Dr Onyechi Ikeazu (SAN), Counsel to Metuh and Destra Investment Limited, argued that the motion became necessary as no prima facie was established against Metuh and his company by the prosecution.

    Ikpeazu further argued that the prosecution did not establish the essential elements of the offences brought against his clients.

    “My Lord, this situation renders the case against my clients manifestly unreliable,’’ he said.

    On his part, however, Mr Sylvanus Tahir, the prosecuting counsel, said the prosecution had place essential oral and documentary evidence to warrant the defendants open their defences.

    “We want Metuh to explain the alleged role he played in the illegal diversion of N400 million meant for the procurement of arms.

    “My Lord, the EFCC by preponderance of evidence, establishes that about $2.1billion meant for the procurement of arms was diverted by retired Col. Sambo Dasuki.

    “Metuh, through his company, Destra Investment Limited, was alleged to have pocketed N400 million out of that funds,’’ he said.

  • Terrorism: Court suspends Okah’s trial

    Terrorism: Court suspends Okah’s trial

    A Federal High Court, Abuja, on Monday suspended the trial of alleged mastermind of Abuja 2010 Independent Day bombing, Charles Okah, pending his recovery from surgery in the National Hospital.

    “In view of the absence of the accused who had undergone a medical surgery in the National Hospital, Abuja, the trial shall be suspended till March 10 at 11:30 a.m,’’ Justice Gabriel Kolawole, ruled.

    Kolawole said that the suspension would help him to recover and attend his trial.

    He, however, ordered that Obi Nwabueze, standing trial alongside Okah be remanded in kuje prison and produced at the next adjourned date.

    At the last sitting, the court ordered the Nigeria Prison Service to provide tight security at hospital during the period Okah was expected to undergo surgery.

    The court had ordered that after the surgery, Okah would be produced in court on the next adjourned date to face his trial.

  • Court refuses FG’s request to shield witnesses in Kanu’s trial

    Court refuses FG’s request to shield witnesses in Kanu’s trial

    Justice James Tsoho of the Federal High Court, Abuja refused the prayer by the Federal Government allowing an arrangement where prosecution witnesses will be masked in the trial of pro-Biafra agitator, Nnamdi Kanu and two of his associates.

    In a ruling Friday, the judge Was of the view that‎ the provisions of section 232 (4)(e) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 provides for such protection, sought by the prosecution, in only terrorism cases.

    The judge said the extension of such arrangement to cases other than terrorism would require an Act of the National Assembly providing for such.

    Kanu, David Nwawusi and Benjamin Madubugwu – are being tried on a six-count charge of treasonable felony, unlawful possession of firearms and other offences bordering on their agitation for secession ‎of the Republic of Biafra from Nigeria.

    The prosecution filed a motion on notice for February 9, 2016 praying for a number of protection measures for its which it said had been inundated with threat messages warning them not to testify in the case.

    Justice Tsoho, in his ruling Friday, held that the prosecution failed to draw the court’s attention to any law made by the National Assembly, allowing the masking of prosecution witnesses cases other than terrorism.

    He however granted other prayers in the application, including the one seeking the exclusion of names of the prosecution witnesses from records of proceedings.

    The judge restated his earlier order permitting only parties to the suit, their lawyers, accredited journalists and some of the relatives of the accused persons to attend the trial.

    He said though he appreciated the fear said to have been expressed prosecution witnesses, he ruled that details of the threat given by the prosecution were not sufficient.

    “I hold the respective view that while the fear of the fear is appreciated, it is not all prayers that can be granted,” the judge ruled.

    The judge upheld the submission of the defence lawyer, Chuks Muoma (SAN), who opposed the application on and among other grounds that allowing the witnesses to wear masks would deprive him (the judge) of watching the demanour of the witnesses while testifying.

    “There is no gain saying the fact that demeanour is crucial in criminal trial in evaluation of evidence,” he ruled while adding that “the look of the witness forms a key part of‎ his demanour.”

    He also rejected the prosecution’s argument that majority of its witnesses were residing in the place of dominance of the accused persons.

    The judge said his findings from the list of witnesses filed by the prosecution only one was said to be residing in Enugu‎, two were said to be residing in Enugu/Port Harcourt, while the rest were said to be living in either Lagos or Abuja.

    ‎Justice Tsoho noted that the Fed Govt has the capacity to protect its witnesses even without the court granting all the prayers sought in the application.

    Shortly after the judge ended his ruling, Muoma told the court that record of‎ some of the property seized from one of the accused persons (Nwawuisi) when he was arrested could not be found and urged the court to make appropriate directive about it.

    The property includes, a jeep, Toyota Camry, Toyota RAV 4, a Mercedez Benz and their spare keys.

    Prosecution lawyer, David Kaswe, promised to investigate the issue and report back to the court.

    The judge consequently adjourned to March 7 for trial.

  • Tarfa: I gave judge N225, 000 for burial not bribe

    Tarfa: I gave judge N225, 000 for burial not bribe

    Embattled Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Chief Rickey Tarfa Friday admitted that he gave N225, 000 to a sitting judge of the Federal High Court, Justice M. N. Yunusa, on January 7, 2014.

    He said the N225, 000 was not a bribe, but a donation from him and some of his friends towards the burial of Justice Yunusa’s father-in-law who died on December 28, 2013.

    In an affidavit filed on his behalf at the Federal High Court Lagos, before Justice Mohammed Idris by one John Olusegun Odubela, Head of Chambers of Messrs Rickey Tarfa and Co., dated February 18, the learned silk denied bribing the judge with the money or ‘any other sum at all.’

    Tarfa appeared Friday before Justice Idris in continuation of his N2.5 billion fundamental rights suit against the Economic and Finanacial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for wrongful arrest and detention.

    He was represented by Bolaji Ayorinde SAN, Anthony Idigbe, SAN, who led four other learned silks and 115 other counsels.

    The EFCC was represented by Mr. Wahab Shittu and five others.

    Tarfa was arrested by operatives of the commission on February 5, within the premises of the Lagos State High Court in Igbosere after a five-hour standoff during which the EFCC claimed that the learned silk prevented its operatives from arresting two of Tarfa’s clients.

    The commission alleged that Tarfa hid the foreigners in his car for five about 11:30 am still some minutes past 5pm.

    In response to the senior lawyer’s suit, EFCC filed preliminary objection on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

    In a counter-affidavit filed on February 19 by one of the commission’s operatives that arrested Tarfa and who is also a respondent in the suit, Moses Awolusi, it was stated that a check carried out on the Access Bank account of Tarfa’s law firm revealed that a sum of N225, 000 was sent to Justice Mohammed Yunusa on January 7, 2014.

    The EFCC claimed on Thursday that the amount was a bribe.

    Awolusi said: “I know from the facts revealed during investigation that the said bribe of N225,000 was accepted and acknowledged by Justice Yunusa in a text message to the applicant, wherein he said, ‘Thank you, my senior advocate.”

    “I also know that investigations have revealed that the applicant’s law firm was in the habit of asking the Chief Registrar of the Lagos Judicial Division of the Federal High Court to assign his cases before His Lordship, Honourable Justice M.N. Yunusa in furtherance of the understanding between the applicant and the particular judge.”

    However, Tarfa averred through Odubela that the money in question was a donation from a committee of friends of the judge including him, to support the judge for the burial of his late father-in-law in Maiduguri since they could not be there physically.

    Odubela stated that his principal, Tarfa was not informed upon his arrest and detention on February 5, by EFCC that he was arrested on the allegation of bribing the judge.

    He said the claim of EFCC that the judge acknowledged the receipt of the alleged bribe by a text message which reads “Thanks my Senior Advocate”, was untrue.

    In urging the court to dismiss Tarfa’s claim for examplary damages of N2.5b, Shittu said from the facts showed that the commission never set out to arrest the applicant.

    He said Tarfa invited arrest by obstructing the commission’s officials from carrying out their lawful duties.

    “I urge the court to dismiss the entire suit with punitive costs,” Shittu added.

    After listening to both parties Justice Idris adjourned the matter till February 29, for judgment.

  • EFCC: Tarfa bribed judge with N225, 000

    EFCC: Tarfa bribed judge with N225, 000

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Thursday alleged that a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chief Rickey Tarfa, bribed Justice Mohammed Yunusa of the Federal High Court with N225, 000.

    It alleged that Tarfa, last January 7, transferred the money to Justice Yunusa, and that the judge acknowledged the “bribe” with the words: “Thank you my senior advocate”.

    This allegation is contained in a counter-affidavit filed Thursday in opposition to Tarfa’s fundamental rights suit against EFCC and others.

    The counter affidavit, along with exhibits, including MTN call logs, were filed by EFCC’s lawyer Mr Wahab Shittu.

    Tarfa filed a N2.5billion suit against the EFCC on February 9 following his arrest by the commission.

    EFCC arraigned Tarfa Tuesday on a two-count charge bordering on obstruction of justice and attempting to pervert the course of justice by communicating with a Federal High Court judge handling a suit filed by him against the commission.

    The commission alleged that on February 5, Tarfa hid two suspects, Nazaire Sorou Gnanhoue and Modeste Finagnon, both Beninoise, in his Mercedes Benz Sports Utility (SUV) vehicle.

    The Beninoise were alleged to have fraudulently converted assets belonging to Rana Prestige Nigeria Limited to their use. They were also accused of tax evasion running into millions of naira.

    Following his arrest, Tarfa sued EFCC, its chairman Ibrahim Magu, the operative that arrested him, Moses Awolusi and Deputy Director Operations, EFCC, Lagos office, Iliyasu Kwarbai, demanding N2.5billion.

    Tarfa asked the court to compel the respondents to release his two mobile handsets which he said were “deceitfully collected” from him, as well as his vehicle.

    The Senior Advocate demanded an apology from the respondents, to be published in at least two widely circulated national newspapers, social media and two television stations with national reach 24 hours from judgment day.

    Besides, he asked for an order of perpetual injunction restraining EFCC and its agents from further violating his rights; as well as N20 million as cost of the suit.

    But, EFCC, in the counter-affidavit sworn to by Awolusi, denied violating Tarfa’s rights.

    The operative said EFCC received an intelligence report of fresh criminal allegations against Nazaire and Modeste not covered by the pending criminal proceedings.

    Based on the report, Kwarbai directed him and his fellow operative to invite Nazaire and Modeste for further interrogation and to make undertaking that they would not escape from justice.

    Awolusi said they were asked to wait outside the court premises for the suspects and to brief Tarfa on the new developments.

    He said they sighted the suspects outside the court at about 11.30am and explained their mission “politely and courteously”.

    “The applicant (Tarfa) deliberately kept the suspects locked up in his black Mercedes Benz jeep and prevented the EFCC operatives including myself from gaining access to the suspects and also prevented the suspects from honouring the invitation,” Awolusi said.

    According to him, Tarfa kept the suspects in his vehicles between 12noon and 5pm.

    He said they were forced out of the vehicle when the engine had to be turned off having run out of fuel.

    It was when they disembarked that the suspects along with Tarfa were arrested, Awolusi said.

    Among items taken from Tarfa were his phones, which Awolusi said was seized due to intelligence report that the SAN communicated with Justice Yunusa “in a desperate bid to pervert the cause of justice in an earlier proceedings involving the suspects.”

    The operative said when data on Tarfa’s mobile phones were analysed, “startling revelations about secret, unhealthy communications between the applicant and judicial officers emerged.”

    Awolusi said EFCC’s investigation of Tarfa’s Access Bank account number 0000964760 “shows that before the institution of the above proceeding, particularly on 7th January 2014, the applicant bribed His Lordship, Honourable Justice M. N. Yunusa with the sum of N225, 000; a copy of the applicant’s firm’s account details showing the transfer of the sum of N225, 000 from the applicant’s firm to Honourable Justice M. N. Yunusa is hereby shown to me and marked Exhibit ‘O’.”

    The operative added: “I know from facts revealed during investigation that the said bribe of N225,000 was accepted and acknowledged by Justice Yunusa in a text message to the applicant wherein he said ‘Thank you my senior advocate’.

    “I also know that an investigation has revealed that the applicant’s law firm was in the habit of asking the Chief Registrar of the Lagos Judicial Division of the Federal High Court to assign his cases before His Lordship Honourable M. N. Yunusa in furtherance of the understanding between the applicant and the particular judge.”

    The EFCC operative alleged that even a junior lawyer in Tarfa’s law firm “also engaged in the corrupt practices of their boss” by manipulating the court’s registry to fix and assign cases by them to particular judges.

    According to Awolusi, there is evidence that Tarfa instructed bank officials through his mobile phone to transfer funds to other public officers.

    The operative said details of such instructions “are being kept to prevent the applicant from tampering with evidence concerning allegation of corrupt practices against the applicant.”

    EFCC alleged that sometime in 2005, Tarfa collected $500,000 from one of his clients “under the pretext that he was going to bribe some officials of EFCC.”

    The commission recalled that on April 29, 2015, Tarfa’s law firm represented Michael Igbinedion, who was standing trial for laundering N25billion.

    EFCC said Tarfa, on April 30, attended a book launch in honour of the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Ibrahim Auta, in company of Chief Gabriel Igbinedion, who was the chief launcher, and who donated N8million.

    EFCC said Tarfa did not advise Igbinedion not to donate the money since Igbinedion’s son, who was later convicted, was standing trial before the court.

    The commission said Tarfa and his brother silks donated N7million on the occasion despite having cases before the Chief Judge.

    According to the agency, Tarfa obtained $500,000 from one Prince Akinruntan in 2006, who later stated that it was by “false pretence.”

    EFCC quoted Akinruntan as saying: “He (Tarfa) told me that the money is not for him alone, that he is going to settle the court, EFCC and many other people.”

    According to the commission, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has refused to discipline Tarfa as recommended by a former judge of the Lagos State High Court, Justice Joseph Oyewole.

    “This is not the first time the applicant will be accused of attempting to pervert the course of justice. I know that the respondents would be highly prejudiced if this application is granted,” the commission argued.

    EFCC said Tarfa’s prayer for aggravated damages in the sum of N2.5billion “is provocative, annoying, self-serving and groundless in the circumstances.”

    It said it cannot release Tarfa’s phones and vehicle to him yet because they are “necessary and vital” evidence against him.

    “It would be in the interest of justice and equity that the reliefs as contained in the motion paper are not granted,” EFCC said.

    The case comes up today for hearing.