The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Justice Adamu Bello

  • Justice Ademola’s ‘agent’ demanded N25m bribe – Witness

    Justice Ademola’s ‘agent’ demanded N25m bribe – Witness

    • Fails to link judge with the bribe request
    A former Director, Pension Accounts, Office of the Head of Civil Service of the Federation, Sani Teidi on Tuesday insisted that Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court demanded N25million bribe from him.
    Teidi, who is being tried for alleged diversion of N4.5billion pension fund, stood trial before Justice Ademola in 2013, during he was granted N1b bail, which conditions he could not meet.
    Testifying yesterday, as the 6th prosecution witness, at the resumed trial of Justice Ademola and two others, Teidi said the judge made it difficult for him to get bail because he failed to part with a N25 bribe allegedly demanded by the judge.
    The witness was, however, unable to link the judge to the demand of the bribe as he merely claimed the judge’s agent, who he identified as Keneth O., acted for the judge.
    Justice Ademola, his wife, Olabowale and a lawyer, Joe Agi (SAN) are being tried before a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) on allegation of acceptance of gratification, illegal possession of firearms and ammunition.
    Led in evidence by prosecution lawyer, Segun Jegede, Teidi said the judge’s refusal to vary his bail condition informed why his (Teidi’s) wife petitioned the National Judicial Council (NJC), accusing the judge of misconduct.
    Teidi said the judge’s  agent met him and left an account number into which he was to pay the bribe.
    Teidi said the judged initially refused to grant him bail, but that after being persuaded by his lawyer to grant bail, the judge kept giving excuses for not signing the documents to facilitate his release.
    He said, “My sureties were one Chief Okey and the second one Igbelimeta Farm Project Limited. They now perfected the bail.
    “After it was perfected, my lawyer, S.I Ameh (SAN), reminded Justice Ademola that our bail conditions had been perfected and the judge said he was aware.
    “But the judge said my case was like Boko Haram, kidnapping and terrorism and so, he would take his time to study it before he would append his signature. Then the case was adjourned.
    “The next time we met in court Justice Ademola, said rain fell on my file so there was no way he could look at it until the file was dry.
    “I appeared before him not less than seven times. I was arraigned around April 2013. I know why my bail was not approved. I got to know around November/December (2013).
    “I got to know that I would not be allowed to go out because the account sent by the agent, Kingsley . O, was not credited.
    “We applied for variation since my remaining surety, Igbelimeta, was unable to meet the N1bn condition. But Justice A.F.A Ademola said N1bn was not too much and that I should go and perfect it.
    “Then we went on appeal. I was in prison for one year and two months before I went on appeal. The appeal succeeded and I was granted bail.
    “The bail condition given by the Court of Appeal was one surety with a property worth N100m within the FCT. It was perfected.
    “The Appeal Court also ordered that I deposited my passport and produced a surety with property worth N100m, that must be resident in Abuja.
    “The Appeal Court also ordered that I should produce the tax clearance of the surety for three years
    “The Court of Appeal also ordered that the case be transferred and that the case should be heard by other judges of the Federal High Court but not Justice A.F.A Ademola,” the witness said.
    He said while in custody, Justice Ademola issued an order of permanent forfeiture of his properties earlier temporarily seized by an order made by the judge before whom he was earlier standing trial, Justice Adamu Bello.
    He identified the properties as Brifina Hotel and Homo Filling Station, AY TED Filling Station.
    Jegede later tendered a certified true copy of the Court of Appeal’s judgment granting bail to Teidi, and the document was admitted by the court as an exhibit.
    Under cross-examination, the defence confronted Teidi with a report issued by the  NJC after investigating the witness’ bribery allegation against the judge in a petition by his wife, Fatimah.
    The report, containing the findings of the NJC’s panel which investigated the petition, was read to the witness by Justice Ademola’s lawyer, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN).
    The report revealed that the findings of the NJC panel showed that, as against Teidi’s claim, the judge only issued a bench warrant against the witness after he failed to appear in court on two different occasions despite being duly notified.
    It also revealed where the panel noted that, although the prosecution did not ask for the bench warrant, the judge, as a master of his court, made the order for Teidi’s arrest in accordance with his power.
    The report also said the alleged “onerous” bail conditions which the judge  imposed on the witness, fell within the discretion of the judge and there was no evidence that the judge acted in “reproach”.
    The report also revealed that the NJC’s investigative panel accepted Justice Ademola’s explanation to the effect that the bail sum was commensurate to the N4.6bn Teidi allegedly stole.
     The panel said the granting of bail was a matter within a judge’s discretion and that the judge was not bound by the decision of another judge.
     Th panel found, in the report,  that Teidi’s wife was unable to provide the identities of numerous “anonymous calls” from persons asking her to pay N25m bribe for her husband’s release, and so linking the callers to the judge was “a mere suspicion” that could not be legally relied on “no matter how strong the suspicion is”.
    The defence also confronted Teidi with a report of the investigation conducted by the police on the issue, which revealed that one of the sureties produced by Teidi, in fulfilment of the bail granted him, presented a forged Certificate of Occupancy to the court.
    When asked by one of the defence lawyer, Robert Clarke (SAN) how he, a defendant in a criminal case,  suddenly became a “friend” of the Department of State Service (DSS), the witness was silent.
    Clarke accused Teidi of serving “as a tool in the hand of DSS to do what they wanted you to do”.
    The trial continues on Wednesday.
  • Court grants Sylva permission to travel abroad

    Court grants Sylva permission to travel abroad

    Justice Adamu Bello of the Federal High Court in Abuja has granted permission to former governor of Bayelsa state, Timipriye Sylva, to travel to South Africa for medical attention.

    Justice Bello gave the permission on Thursday while ruling on the ex-governor’s application for release of his international passport to enable him travel for treatment.

    The judge had refused two similar applications filed earlier by Sylva on the ground that they were not supported by sufficient facts.

    Sylva is being tried by the court on a six-count charge bordering on alleged financial impropriety.

    The former governor and several others were accused of defrauding the state to the tune of N2 billion while in office.

    Justice Bello held that since hearing on the new charge has been set for January 23 next year, he has ample opportunity to travel for his medical treatment and come back before the date.

    “I have decided to give the applicant a benefit of doubt that he needs a medical treatment in South Africa,” the judge said.

    He gave the ex-governor 28 days, starting from December 7 to make the trip and return on or before January 5, 2014.

    He ordered Sylva’s surety to sign an undertaken, assuring that should the ex-governor fail to return on the agreed date he would face his trial.

     

     

  • Court picks December 23 for judgment on security votes

    Justice Adamu Bello of the Federal High Court, Abuja, on Wednesday adjourned judgment in a suit challenging the authority of state governors to make deductions as security votes to December 23.

    A Human Rights activist, Chief Nkereuwen Akpan, had filed the suit against the 36 state governors.

    Akpan is asking the court to declare that the sums deducted from statutory allocation by governors for the purpose were illegal, fraudulent and unconstitutional.

    He named the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and Independent Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) as defendants.

    Bello, who had initially reserved Wednesday to interpret Sections 16 (2) and 120 of the 1999 Constitution which formed the fulcrum of the suit, said that the judgment was not ready.

    “I am indeed sorry for my inability to deliver this judgment today, it is simply not ready,’’ he said.

    The News Agency of Nigeria reports that Akpan is seeking the court to interpret sections 16(2) and 120 of the 1999 Constitution and determine whether state governors have powers to deduct monies from statutory allocation of states.

    He also prayed for an order compelling the AGF to order EFCC and ICPC to investigate the deductions

    He urged the court to determine whether the policy of security vote was recognized either by the 1999 constitution or any other law in the country.

    However, the governors had jointly raised objection on the competence of the plaintiff to institute the action.

    They urged the court to dismiss the suit on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction of the court and “locus standi of the plaintiff.

     

  • Firm queries court’s refusal to try Jega, INEC for alleged contempt

    Can a court grant a prayer not sought by parties? Why would a court refrain from safeguarding its integrity and powers by refusing to penalise a party it established wilfully breached its orders?

    These, among others, are questions set for determination in an appeal filed before the Court of Appeal, Abuja by a firm, Bedding Holdings Limited (BHL).

    The appeal, particularly, queries a portion of a May 28,2013 ruling by Justice Adamu Bello of the Federal High Court, Abuja, where the judge stayed proceedings in a contempt case initiated against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), its Chairman, Attahiru Jega for failing to obey orders made by the court.

    In the ruling, Justice Bello refused applications by INEC, Jega and a contractor with INEC, Emchai Limited, seeking to stay the execution of the court’s judgment of June 5, 2012 pending appeal.

    Justice Bello had in the judgment given in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/82/11 held among others, that the plaintiff, BHL owns valid and subsisting patent rights over Transparent Ballot Boxes and Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot Boxes being used for elections in the country.

    Specifically, the court upheld BHL’s claim to being the bona fide patentee and the exclusive owner of the invention named “Transparent Ballot Boxes” on which it was issued certificate of registration patent rights No. RP12994 and registration of industrial designs rights No. RD5946 by the Registrar of Patents on January 12, 1998.

    The court also upheld the subsequent certification of an improvement on the invention named “Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot Boxes” (with certificate of registration of patent rights No. RP16642 and registration of industrial designs rights No. RD13841 issued on November 27, 2006 which are still valid.

    The judge voided the rights over similar inventions purportedly issued later, to three firms – Emchai Limited, Tambco United Nigeria Ltd and Anowat Project and Resources Ltd – by the Registrar of Patent, for being illegal.

    Justice Bello granted an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and any other person from utilising or dealing with the patented boxes of the plaintiff “except with the express and prior consent, license and authority of the plaintiff to that effect.”

    Rather than abide by the court’s injunction, INEC and Jega deployed the same ballot boxes for the conduct of the Kwara State House of Assembly rerun election on June 30, 2012 in Ilorin Northwest Local Government; governorship elections in two states – Edo (July 10, 2012) and Ondo (October 20, 2012) without the consent of BHL.

    These developments informed the contempt proceedings.

    Convinced that the contempt proceedings were properly initiated, Justice Gladys Olotu (also of the Federal High Court, Abuja) in a ruling on August 29, 2012 set the contempt proceedings down for hearing and determination expeditiously.

    In his May 28, 2013 ruling, Justice Bello equally found that INEC and Jega violated his court’s order, and came down hard on them (INEC and Jega) for acting in disregard of the court’s order.

    He frowned at the decision of the electoral body and its Chairman to deploy the same ballot boxes for the governorship elections held last year on July 10 in Edo State and on October 20 in Ondo state without the consent of the plaintiff and in disregard of the court’s subsisting order made on June 5, 2012.

    Justice Bello held that it was funny that INEC and Jega would approach his court for an indulgence having willingly disregarded and flouted its order.

    “They (INEC and Jega) conducted the elections on July 14 and October 20, 2012 using the same ballot boxes as averred by the plaintiff/respondent (BHL) in its counter affidavit, which has not been denied by the 6th and 7th defendants (INEC and Jega) in the two further and better affidavit, in total disregard to the injunctive order, the execution of which they now seek to stay by their application.

    “Since the elections have been conducted, the need for staying the execution of the injunctive order granted by the court has abated, at least for now. “And even if the need for the order for stay of execution has not abated, the defendants by proceeding to conduct the two elections, using the same ballot boxes, the use of which was restrained by the court’s judgment, have soiled their hands and can not therefore seek the indulgence of the court.

    “He, who comes to equity, must come with clean hands. The 6th and 7th defendants have not come with clean hands before the court and can not therefore seek for equitable relief of stay of execution of the order in the judgment.

    “Consequently, I refuse to grant the application, as granting it will tantamount to the court encouraging further breach of its own judgment order, which subsists until set aside by the Court of Appeal.

    “The only order I am mindful to grant pursuant to the omnibus prayer in the motion, is an order staying proceedings in the contempt proceedings initiated by the plaintiff/respondent, pending the hearing and determination of the appeal by the 6th and 7the defendants,” Justice Bello held.

    However, the contention of BHL in its appeal, is that Justice Bello had no business staying proceedings in the contempt case having noted that INEC and Jega disobeyed his court’s order.

    It also argued that since contempt proceedings are separate proceedings from the cases from which they emerged, they could run separately.

    BHL queried Justice Bello’s decision to make the consequential order staying proceedings in the contempt case when no party sought for such order.

    It raised four grounds of appeal, the first being that the trial judge erred in law when he made the consequential order of stay of proceedings thereby occasioning a “grave miscarriage of justice.”

    BHL also faulted the trial judge decision to stay proceedings even when it found “that prima facie, the 6th and 7th defendants willingly disregarded and flouted the order of the court contained in its judgment of June 5, 2012.”

    It contended that the trial judge was in error when he relied on the omnibus prayers in the motions before him to make the consequential order for stay of proceedings in the contempt case, having found that prima facie, INEC and Jega flouted the court’s order.

    BHL also argued that the trial court’s decision of May 28, 2013 “is against the weight of evidence.” It therefore prayed the Court of Appeal to set aside the portion of Justice Bello’s decision of May 28 staying proceedings in the contempt case.

    The appellant also prayed the appellate court to either set the contempt proceedings down for prompt hearing or remit it back to the Federal High Court for hearing and determination on merit, within one month.

     

  • Anti-Salami’s suit suffers setback

    Anti-Salami’s suit suffers setback

    An attempt by a lawyer, Noah Ajare, to obtain judgment by default in a suit against the suspended President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Isa Ayo Salami suffered a setback on Monday.

    Justice Adamu Bello of the Federal High Court, Abuja, struck out the suit following objection by the National Judicial Council (NJC) who said the application for judgment had been overtaken by event.

    The Plaintiff is seeking to stop the reinstatement of Justice Salami.

    A similar suit by him had been struck out for lacking in merit by Justice Abdul Kafarati of the Federal High Court, Abuja, on May 30 last year.

    The judge had said the Plaintiff lacked the locus-standi to institute the action.

    But Ajare returned to the court on Monday with an application to enter judgment in his favour because the Defendants did not file any response to the suit.

    The Respondents are President Goodluck Jonathan, the Attorney General of the Federation, Mohammed Asoke (SAN) and the NJC.

    Objecting to the application, the NJC’s counsel, Isaac Paul, told the court that he had responded to the application filed by the plaintiff and hence application for judgment brought had been overtaken by time.

     

  • Maina: Court extends time for Senate, others on affidavits

    Maina: Court extends time for Senate, others on affidavits

    The Federal High Court on Monday in Abuja granted the Senate an extension of time to file a counter affidavit on a motion, challenging its resolution for warrant issued on Abdulrasheed Maina.

    The News Agency of Nigeria reports that Maina, Chairman of the Pension Reform Task Force Team, had dragged the Senate and seven other defendants to court in respect of the warrant for his arrest.

    The other defendants are the Senate President, Clerk of the Senate, Senate Committees on Establishment & Public Service and the State and Local Government Administration.

    Also dragged to court are the Inspector General of Police, Sen. Aloysius Etuk, Chairman, Senate Committee on Establishment and Public Service as well as Sen. Kabiru Gaya, Chairman, Senate Committee on State and Local Government Administration.

    At the resumed sitting on Monday, Justice Adamu Bello held that “since the respondents had yet to file their counter affidavits, arguments on the application cannot go on.”

    “In the circumstance, the respondents are given three days within which to file their counter affidavits and the applicant has three days to reply,’’ he said.

    In a related development, Mr. Magaji Mahmud (SAN), counsel to Maina filed an oral application praying for an order for the maintenance of “statuesque’’ by all the parties.

    He submitted that such an order was necessary to stop the threat coming on his client from the respondents.

    The application was however, opposed by the counsel to the Senate, Mr. Ken Ikonne (SAN), as according to him, similar relief was dismissed by the court on February 15.

     

  • Pension fraud: Judge threatens to strike out suit

    Pension fraud: Judge threatens to strike out suit

    A Federal High Cort Judge, Justice Adamu Bello, on Tuesday threatened to strike out the pension fraud suit filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission for lack of diligent prosecution.

    The Judge gave the warning when no lawyer came to represent the anti-graft agency in the alleged N4.56 billion fraud slammed against a former Director, Pension Administration in the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, Dr. Sani Teidi Shuaibu.

    At the resumed hearing on Tuesday, counsel to Shuaibu, Mr. Sunday Ameh (SAN) begged the court to strike out the charge.

    According to him, the charge was filed on October 17, 2011 and the accused was arraigned April 3, 2012.

    He also told the court that the prosecution could not claim ignorance about the sitting because he was in court when the case was adjourned on July 19, 2012.

    “The prosecution had been present in court up till July 19, 2012 and the case was adjourned to November 14, 2012 before the court later adjourned till today (Tuesday) at the instance of the prosecution.

    “In a matter that is not coming up before the court for the very first time. Matter for which parties have taken part in previous proceedings and particularly, in a criminal trial, it is the responsibility of the prosecution to know when the case is coming up.

    “Even if the case was not properly adjourned, it is the responsibility of parties to find out hearing date. The prosecution should have taken steps to find out about the adjourned date of the case”, Ameh argued.