The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Judge

  • Judge withholds judgment in Saraki’s suit

    Judge withholds judgment in Saraki’s suit

    •Justice Kafarayi blames media reports •Senate President’s lawyer faults report

    Justice Abdul Kafarayi of the Federal High Court, Abuja yesterday withheld his scheduled judgment in a fundamental rights enforcement suit by Senate President Bukola Saraki.

    The suit is one of many moves by Saraki to stall his trial on charges of false assets declaration before the Code of Conduct Tribunal.

    Saraki, in the suit filed through one of his lawyers, Ajibola Oluyede, urged the court to, among others, quash the charge before the CCT and restrain the tribunal, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and other respondents in the suit from further arresting or prosecution him on the issue of false assets declaration.

    On March 1, Justice Kafarati fixed judgment for yesterday after entertaining arguments from parties, who also adopted their final written addresses.

    At the resumption of court’s businesses at 9am yesterday, the court’s registrar informed lawyers in the case, including Saraki’s supporters, who arrived the court early,  that the judgment has been fixed for 1pm.

    They all waited patiently, but when the judge arrived at a little over 1pm, he stunned all when he announced his decision not to deliver judgment, but to withdraw from the case.

    He hinged his decision on some reports by on-line media, including Sahara Reporters and Naij.com, which, he said, portrayed him in bad light.

    He said by the impression created in the reports, it suggested that he had been compromised, stressing that it would be wrong for him to proceed and render any decision in the case.

    Justice Kafarati said: “The two publications made allegations against my person, alleging that I have been compromised with N2 billion.

    “They also alleged that I am known in the legal circle for being susceptible to corruption.

    “What this has done is to put my integrity to question. I however regard the publishers as people of unsound mind.

    “They know that what they said is not true. They just derive pleasure when they malign the integrity of a judicial office.

    “It is unfortunate that we don’t have the appropriate laws to take care of this.

    “As it stands, I am caught between two devils. If the judgment goes in favour of the applicant, they will say yes, that I have been compromised. On the other hand, if it goes against him, they will say I have been intimidated.

    “In the light of the allegation, I believe the right and appropriate thing to do is to disqualify myself and return the case-file to the Chief Judge for re-assignment to another Judge.”

    After the judge announced his decision, Oluyede and a respondent lawyer in the case, Adebisi Adeniyi, engaged briefly in hot verbal exchanges over Oluyede’s suggestion that the EFCC was behind the reports.

    The judge intervened and told them he had made up his mind on the issue, following which Adeniyi noted that it was improper for Oluyede to make such “spurious allegation” without proof.

    Responding, Oluyede said although the judge has taken the right steps, it was unfortunate that the applicant is the one to suffer.

    “It is equally bad that the EFCC has gone to this level. We know that it is behind the publications. This was not correct.

    “It is worrisome that this practice, of using the media, particularly Sahara Reporters, to malign judges into abdicating from matters is dangerous. It amounts to attacks on the rule of law and our democracy.

    “There should be an investigation as to the source of the Sahara Reporters’ story and appropriate sanctions against culprits no matter how highly placed.

    “On our part, we shall commence criminal contempt proceedings against the now known proprietors of Sahara Reporters and ensure they are deterred from this criminal use of their online medium,” Oluyede said

     

     

  • 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.

  • Tarfa explains relationship with judge 

    Tarfa explains relationship with judge 

    A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Rickey Tarfa, has denied bribing a judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Hyeladzira Ajiya Nganjiwa, with N5.3million.

    He said he read about the allegation in the media and has not been served with a fresh charge.

    Explaining his relationship with the judge, Tarfa said before being appointed to the Bench, Justice Nganjiwa was absorbed into his firm in 1995 immediately after leaving the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) where he rose to the position of Deputy Director (Prosecution).

    Tarfa said Nganjiwa was with his law firm until he was appointed to the Federal High Court in 2012.

    The senior advocate, in a statement  by his Head of Chamber, Mr. John Odubela, said Nganjiwa, who specialised in criminal law, attracted many briefs/clients because of his expertise.

    Tarfa said upon his appointment as a judge, the law firm continued with the cases he brought to the chambers.

    “In the light of the above, we have continued to discharge the firm’s financial obligations to him in respect of cases he has handled for the firm as a practicing legal practitioner in our law firm and those he brought to the chambers,” the statement said.

    Tarfa accused the EFCC of persecution, describing 27 count charge filed against him as ridiculous.

    “We have cause to once more react to the malicious trial by media of our Rickey Tarfa (SAN) by the EFCC. Trials are never won on the pages of newspapers, the airwaves and on online platforms.

    “The recent 27 count charge allegedly filed against Tarfa by EFCC is not only laughable because as at the time of issuing this press statement, Tarfa is yet to be served with the charge. The media is, however, awash with ‘details’ of the said charge.”

    On the allegation of the falsification of age, the statement said Tarfa always marked his birthdays publicly and has no reason to lie about his age.

    “For the umpteenth time, we as a law firm, assure all our clients and members of the public that we are law abiding and would never be involved in any act in contravention of the law of the country.

    “We restate that we appreciate the goodwill, support from colleagues, friends, clients and lovers of human rights, through calls, text messages and personal visits since this persecution commenced and pledge that the 28 year old firm of RickeyTarfa& Co. will continue to practice its trade in the best traditions of the bar.”

     

  • EFCC alleges another SAN gave judge N750,000

    EFCC alleges another SAN gave judge N750,000

    • SAN: I helped the judge

    Another Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Dr Joseph Nwobike, paid N750,000 into the account of Justice Mohammed Yunusa of the Federal High Court, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) alleged Wednesday.

    The allegation is contained in a counter-affidavit filed in opposition to a further and better affidavit filed by Rickey Tarfa (SAN).

    Justice Mohammed Idris Wednesday ruled that Tarfa could adduce new evidence through the further affidavit deposed to by a lawyer, Mohammed Awwal Yunusa.

    In the further and better affidavit, the lawyer said the bank account, which EFCC said Tarfa used to bribe Justice Yunusa, belongs to him, and not to Justice Yunusa as EFCC alleged in its counter-affidavit to Tarfa’s suit.

    The lawyer said Tarfa gave him N225, 000 on January 7, 2014 to help finance his masters in Law degree.

    But EFCC has alleged that Tarfa was not the only SAN to pay money to Justice Yunusa’s account.

    An EFCC operative, Moses Awolusi, said there were new revelations about judges being allegedly induced through “a network of senior lawyers”.

    “Investigation has also shown that as part of this chain of fraud, Mr. Joseph Nwobike (SAN) also transferred the sum of N300, 000 to Hon. Justice H.A Nganjiwa.

    “Investigations further revealed that Hon Justice M.N Yunusa as part of this scheme of fraud also received the sum of N750, 000 from Mr. Joseph Nwobike SAN and Co,” the EFCC investigator said.

    But Nwobike, in a statement to the anti-graft agency, which was also attached to the affidavit, explained that the money was not meant to bribe the judge.

    He said it was the judge who asked him for financial assistance in respect of his mother who was undergoing dialysis due to failing kidney.

    “Sometime ago, Justice Yunusa requested to see me. When I got there, he pleaded with me to assist him with some funds since his mother was under dialysis.

    “He stated that her kidney had parked up and that he needed assistance to cure her. I felt sorry for him. I told him that I did not have funds, but that I would assist him when I had some money.

    “I requested for his account details which he obliged me. When I got some money about two weeks after, I gave the money to him and he thanked me when he saw me along the corridor of the court of the Federal High Court, Ikoyi,” Nwobike said.

    Justice Idris ruled that he would consider the further and better affidavit filed in support of Tarfa’s N2.5billion fundamental rights suit.

    The Senior Advocate sued EFCC for allegedly violating his rights after he was arrested for hiding two suspects, Nazaire Sorou Gnanhoue and Modeste Finagnon, both Beninoise, in his Mercedes Benz Sports Utility (SUV) vehicle, thereby shielding them from arrest.

    EFCC, its chairman Ibrahim Magu, Moses Awolusi, who arrested Tarfa, and Deputy Director Operations, EFCC, Lagos office, Iliyasu Kwarbai are the respondents.

    Tarfa demanded N2.5billion, sought an order of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents and their agents from further violating his rights, and asked for N20 million as cost of the suit, among others.

    Justice Idris ruled: “A court will allow a party re-open and adduce further evidence in circumstances of unavailability of the evidence during trial or hearing and in the interest of justice.

    “Interest of justice involves an indulgence, even though it ought to be confined to matter arising ex-improviso, which no human ingenuity could have foreseen. There must have been no indolence, surprise, or otherwise an intention to overreach the other party.

    “The evidence sought to be adduced by the applicant (Tarfa) was one that was not available previously in reply.

    “From the nature of the evidence, it is my respectful view that it is in the interest of the parties and to court that it be allowed at this stage of proceedings for whatever it is worth.

    “I do not consider it repugnant to justice and one intended to overreach the case. I shall stop here and say no more. The application succeeds and it is granted as prayed.

    “The respondents (EFCC and others) are at liberty to respond to the fresh evidence adduced by the applicant herein.”

    It was in the response filed by its lawyer Wahab Shittu that EFCC alleged that Nwobike paid the money to Justice Yunusa.

    Justice Idris adjourned until today for hearing.

  • Judge reverses decision in Oronsaye’s, Dokpesi’s trials

    Judge reverses decision in Oronsaye’s, Dokpesi’s trials

    •Directs return of case files to Justice Kolawole

    The Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Ibrahim Auta, has reversed his decision to reassign the cases involving ex-Head of the Civil Service Steven Oronsaye and businessman Raymond Dokpesi to a new judge.

    The new judge to which the case was reassigned yesterday declined to take any step.

    Justice Auta earlier this year reassigned the case from Justice Gabriel Kolawole (before who Oronsaye and Dokpesi had been arraigned) to Justice James Tsoho, who was redeployed from the Lagos division.

    Dokpesi and his company, Daar Investment and Holdings Limited, were, on February 17 re-arraigned before Justice Tsoho, who allowed them to remain on the bail granted by Justice Kolawole.

    Yesterday, parties were in court, hoping that Oronsaye and others, named in a 35-count charge, would be re-arraigned before the new judge.

    When the case was called, Oronsaye and two other defendants: Osarenkhoe Afe and his company, Fredrick Hamilton Global Services Limited, were present. Oronsaye and Afe were in the dock.

    Prosecution lawyer Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) noted that other defendants in the case – Global Services Limited, Cluster Logistic Limited, Kangolo Dynamic Cleaning Limited and  Crew Investment & Construction Company Limited – were not represented.

    Jacobs urged the judge to direct that the charge be read to the defendants and that a “no guilty” plea be entered for the other  defendants in accordance with Section 478 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA).

    At that point, Justice Tsoho told parties there was no need for the charge to be read because there was a new development.

    “This file came to me in error. The instruction is that I should return it to the judge that started it. As you know, I am just coming. I don’t know the intricacies involved. I have received instruction from the appropriate quarters,” the judge said

    Jacobs wondered why it was only the Oronsaye case that was to be returned to the old judge. He noted that other criminal cases that were commenced by other judges before his (Tsoho’s) redeployment to Abuja, but reassigned to him, have not been withdrawn.

    Responding, Justice Tsoho said: “I have also learnt that the other criminal cases reassigned to me came in error.

    “I don’t think I need to make any explanation on that. If you require detailed information, you should refer to the appropriate quarters,” he said.

    The judge, in a short ruling, said :”It has been realised that this case came to me in error. I have been directed by the chief judge to return the file to Justice  Kolawole. I wish you good luck.”

    Dokpesi and his company were arraigned last December 9 before Justice Kolawole, on a six-count of alleged procurement fraud and breach of public trust at N2.1 billion.

    They were said to have received N2.1 billion from the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA) between October 2014 and March 2015, which was used for the Peoples Democratic Party’s (PDP’s) presidential media campaign, an offence breaching the Public Procurement Act, Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act and the EFCC Establishment Act.

    Dokpesi and his company were again re-arragned before Justice Tsoho on the same charge.

    Although further hearing in the case was, on the last day, scheduled for today, it is not certain if anything would be done in the case before Justice Tsoho.

    Oronsaye and two others – Osarenkhoe Afe and his company, Fredrick Hamilton Global Services Limited – were arraigned last July 13 on a 24-count for allegedly laundering about N1.2 billion.

    They pleaded not guilty.

    They were charged under Section 14 of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2004 and Section 1(1) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006; offences said to be punishable under Section 1(3) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2 006.

    The prosecution amended the charge, included four companies as defendants, and raised the count to 35.

  • Judge renews order barring electricity tariff hike

    Judge renews order barring electricity tariff hike

    •Warns NERC, DISCOs against contempt

    Justice Mohammed Idris of the Federal High Court in Lagos on Monday renewed the order barring the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC) from increasing electricity tariff.

    He said the order that parties maintain status quo ante bellum subsists.

    “The order that the parties in this suit should maintain the status quo ante bellum remains valid and binding until it is set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction,” Justice Idris held.

    He spoke while delivering ruling on a contempt proceedings initiated by activist-lawyer, Toluwani Adebiyi, against NERC chairman and Chief Executives of Distribution Companies (DISCOs).

    Justice Idris first made the order last May, but while the suit was pending, NERC announced the tariff hike.

    NERC’s lawyer, Chief Anthony Idigbe (SAN), and others said they were not personally served with the Form 48 (notice of consequence of disobedience of court order).

    Ruling, Justice Idris agreed with the respondents and held that Adebiyi issued Form 49 (a formal application for committal to prison of a person who refuses to obey an order) without properly serving the alleged contemnors with the Form 48.

    He said: “It is clear, in this case, that the purported issuance of the Form 49 on the defendants by the plaintiff without prior and proper service of the Form 48 is premature.

    “The issuance of Form 49 when the court is yet to hear and determine the application of the plaintiff for leave to serve Form 48 is also inappropriate.

    “In the circumstances, I hold that the defendants’ objections have merit. The Form 49 and the motion for order for committal issued by the plaintiff against the defendants are hereby set aside. The court has set aside the contempt application due to fundamental procedural irregularities.”

    Justice Idris, however, said NERC and the DISCOs are still liable to be held in contempt should they continue to violate the order.

  • …EFCC to drag judge to NJC

    …EFCC to drag judge to NJC

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission(EFCC) was poised last night to drag Justice Mohammed Yunusa  of the Federal High Court to the National Judicial Council(NJC) for investigation on the alleged N225,000 bribe from a lawyer Mr. Ricky Tarfa (SAN).

    A formal complaint was due  to be lodged with the NJC by the EFCC yesterday.

    The anti-graft agency,it was gathered,decided against  arresting or arraigning  the judge because of its respect for the rule of law and due process.

    A reliable source in the commission confirmed that “we are lodging a formal complaint against Justice Yunusa with the National Judicial Council (NJC) for the investigation of his inappropriate relationship with Tarfa.

    “We want them to look into the alleged payment of N225,000 into his account by  Mr. Ricky Tarfa(SAN).

    “As the Chairman of the EFCC, Mr. Ibrahim Magu, has said, this commission has respect for the rule of law and due process. We will refer Justice Yunusa to the Chief Justice of Nigeria who is also the Chairman of the NJC.

    “The outcome of the NJC’s investigation will further determine how we will treat the judge’s matter. But we are also ready to submit all relevant facts and evidence to the NJC.”

    On the fate of the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Ibrahim Auta, the source said: “It is left to the NJC to take judicial notice of the reference made to him in the affidavit and find out if there was a book launch or not.”

    A source in the NJC said the nation might have to wait for a while to know the culpability or otherwise of Justice Yunusa in the bribery scandal because the investigative process will go through four stages.

    The source said: “First of all, the EFCC must send a petition to the CJN. Then the CJN will refer the matter to the Preliminary Complaints Assessment Committee (PCAC) which will determine the merit or otherwise of the issues.

    “After the profiling by the PCAC, the matter will then be taken to the Plenary of the NJC. It is the Plenary that will now decide whether or not to set up a Fact-Finding Committee where the petitioner(s) and the defendants will appear with their lawyers.

    “Despite these four stages, a petition or complaint can be given accelerated hearing by the NJC.”

    The NJC and the President are empowered to determine a judge’s fate in line with the process outlined by the  Part I, Paragraph I, Section 21(b) of the Third Schedule to the  1999 Constitution (as amended) and  Section 292(1)( a)(i)

    Part I, Paragraph I, Section 21(b) of the Third Schedule to the Constitution reads: “For the avoidance of doubt, the said Third Schedule, Part I, Paragraph I, Section 21(b) of the Constitution provides that “the NJC shall have power to recommend to the President the removal from office of (the Chief Justice of Nigeria, the Justices of the Supreme Court, the President and Justices of the Court of Appeal, and the Chief Judge and Judges of the Federal High Court) and to exercise disciplinary control over such officers”

    Section 292(1)( a)(i) says: “A judicial officer shall not be removed from his office or appointment before his age of retirement, except in the following circumstances (a) in the case of the Chief Justice of Nigeria,  the President  of the Court of Appeal, the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Chief Judge of the  High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Grand Khadi of the Sharia Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, and President, Customary Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, by the President( of Nigeria), acting on an address supported by two-thirds majority of the Senate, praying that he be so removed for his inability to discharge the functions of his office or appointment (whether arising from infirmity of mind or body) or for misconduct or contravention of the Code of Conduct.”

    In an affidavit at the Federal High Court in Lagos, an operative of the EFCC, Mr. Moses Awolusi, said the agency’ 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 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.”

    The 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 the EFCC”.

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

    TheEFCC 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.

    The 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”.

    TheEFCC 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.”

  • Alleged N2.1b fraud: Dokpesi re-arraigned before new judge

    Alleged N2.1b fraud: Dokpesi re-arraigned before new judge

    The Federal Government yesterday re-arraigned the founder, African Independent Television (AIT), Raymond Dokpesi and his company, Daar Investment and Holdings Limited, before a new judge of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

    Dokpesi and his company were arraigned last December 9 before Justice Gabriel Kolawole of the same court, on a six-count of alleged procurement fraud and breach of public trust to the tune of N2.1 billion.

    They were said to have received N2.1 billion from the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA), between October 2014 and March 2015, for the Peoples Democratic Party’s (PDP) presidential media campaign, an offence in breach of the Public Procurement Act, Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act and the EFCC Establishment Act.

    One of the counts reads: “That you Dr. Raymond Dokpesi and Daar Investment and Holding Company Limited, between October 2014 and March 19, 2015, in Abuja, conducted procurement fraud by means of fraudulent and corrupt act, to wit: receipt of payment into the account of Daar Investment and Holding Company Limited with First Bank of Nigeria Plc of public funds in the sum of N2,120,000,000 from the account of the Office of the National Security Adviser (NSA) with the Central Bank of Nigeria for the funding of media activities for the 2015 presidential election campaign for the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and you thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 58 (4) (b) of the Public Procurement Act, 2007 and punishable under Section 58 (6) & (7) of the same Act”.

    Dokpesi, who answered to the charge for himself and his company, said they were both not guilty to the charge.

    Shortly after the arraignment, Wole Olanipekun (SAN), who led four other Senior Advocates and others for the defence, prayed the court to allow his client remain on the bail granted him by Justice Kolawole.

    The new judge, Justice James Tsoho, agreed to Olanipekun’s request that the defendants remain on the bail granted them.

    He adjourned to March 2 for commencement of trial.

  • Judge warns against flouting orders on tariff

    Judge warns against flouting orders on tariff

    Justice Mohammed Idris of the Federal High Court in Lagos yesterday warned the Federal Government and Distribution Companies (DISCOs) against flouting court orders on tarriff.

    He said the government must not show disdain for the court in a democracy.

    Justice Idris said: “The point must be made that obedience to the rule of law by citizens but more particularly those who take the oath of office to protect and preserve the Constitution is decideratum to good governance and respect for rule of law.

    ‘’In a constitutional democratic society as ours, this is meant to be the norm.

    “It is an act of apostacy for government to ignore the law and the rules meant to regulate matters.

    “I must say it loud and clear that the government shall be a government of laws and not of men.”

    Protests by labour unions have trailed the new tarriff approved by the Nigeria Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC).

    Activist-lawyer Toluwani Adebiyi last year filed a suit seeking a perpetual injunction restraining NERC from implementing any upward review of tariff without significant improvement in power supply for at least18 hours a day.

    Justice Idris made an order directing parties to maintain the status quo.

    But, while the suit was pending, NERC announced the tarriff hike.

    Yesterday, Adebiyi informed the court that he initiated contempt proceedings against NERC chairman and chiefs of the DISCOs for disobeying court orders.

    The lawyer prayed the court to commit the alleged contemnors to prison.

    But NERC’s lawyer Chief Anthony Idigbe (SAN) said he filed an appeal against the order by Justice Idris.

    He said he had a pending application for a stay of proceedings pending the determination of the appeal.

    Adebiyi said the contempt charge should be heard first since NERC undermined the court’s authority.

    But Idigbe said the application for a stay of proceedings should take precedence since an appeal had been lodged.

    Justice Idris said after examining the records, there were a number of pending applications to be dispensed with.

    Among them is the Form 49 filed by the plaintiff and a motion for leave to serve the purported contemnors through their counsel.

    He said there was also an application by the second to 12th defendants to set aside the Form 49 as well as an application by NERC challenging the motion on notice for committal.

    Also pending is an application to stay proceedings pending the hearing and determination of the appeal to the Court of Appeal against the orders of July 23, 2015.

    Justice Idris said: “I understand it to be the law that contempt proceedings are criminal in nature and should, therefore, ordinarily in the context of our jurisprudence be first dealt with either by the court trying the case when the alleged contempt took place or by another court.

    “The purpose of taking contempt proceedings first is to demonstrate to the public that the court, being the creation of the Constitution to decide cases between all manner of litigants vide Section 6 of the Constitution, should protect its dignity and will neither allow a citizen nor any other arm of government to brazenly do an act that will diminish the powers duly invested by the Constitution and the common law in the administration of justice.

    “On the other hand, the basis upon which the contempt application is premised, which is the order that parties maintain the status quo ante-bellum, is on appeal, and there is a motion for a stay of proceedings in this suit pending appeal.

    “It is in the interest of justice, therefore, that this application to stay proceedings be heard and determined.

    “Until then, no further proceedings should go on. I will, therefore, take arguments on the application to stay proceedings in this suit.”

    Adebiyi said he was served with the application for a stay of proceedings last week and needed time to respond.

    He earlier argued that NERC and the DISCOs could not be heard until they “purge themselfs of acts of contempt of court.”

    Besides, he said the stay of proceedings’ application was a ploy to delay the case and enable NERC implement the new tariff despite the court order.

    Adebiyi prayed for an order of court mandating NERC to generate more power to meet the country’s power  needs, and to develop a multiple long-term financing approach, sourced from the banks, capital market, insurance and other sectors to finance the sector.

    The lawyer also asked the court to mandate NERC to make available, within two years, prepaid meters as a way of stopping indiscriminate estimated bills.

    In a supporting affidavit, the plaintiff said despite NERC’s mission of “keeping the light on and to meet the needs of Nigeria for safe, adequate, reliable and affordable electricity,” most communities do not get more than 30 minutes of electricity supply daily.

    Justice Idris adjourned till Friday to hear the application for a stay of proceedings.

     

  • Court sends judge to prison for alleged fraud

    A Federal High Court sitting in Gombe State yesterday  remanded an area court judge, Umar Y. Gwani, for alleged fraud.

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), which filed the case, accused the judge of collecting money from the public through false pretence and conspiracy.

    The counsel to the EFCC, Zarami Mohammed, said the accused conspired with two others to sell plots of land belonging to Gombe State Government to the public through false pretence.

    He said the judge failed to contact the Ministry of Land and Survey and Local Government Area before selling the plots of land to the public.

    He also said the judge later had denied receiving payments for the eight or nine plots sold for N7 million.

    The accused judge appeared before the Federal High court on a four- count charge.

    Speaking to journalists after the hearing, his counsel, Mukaan Kingsley, said that he was surprised to see that the listed count charges were different from what transpired in court.