The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Justice Adeniyi Ademola

  • Appeal Court affirms acquittal of Justice Ademola’s co-defendant, Agi


    The Court of Appeal in Abuja has affirmed the acquittal of Joe Agi (SAN) charged with a retired judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Adeniyi Ademola and his wife, Ademide for allegedly receiving N30mmillion and a car worth N8.5m as bribe from the lawyer.

    In a judgment on Monday evening, a three-man panel of the Court of Apeal led by Justice Stephen Adah, held that the prosecution failed the prove its case against Agi.

    The court, in a unanimous judgment, affirmed the decision of the trial court to strike down of sections 53 and 60 of the Corrupt Practices and other related offences Act 2000.

    The judgment was on the appeal filed by the Federal Government, through the office of the Attorney general of the Federation (AGF) against an earlier judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja which acquitted the three defendants.

    The FG filed three appeals against the judgment. While the Court of Appeal gave judgment on Monday in the appeal relating to Agi’s acquittal, it is yet to deliver judgment in the two appeals against the acquittal of Justice Ademola and his wife.

    Justice Olabisi Ige, who read the lead judgment, agreed that the provisions of the sections 53 and 60 of the ICPC Act, that required the defendants to prove that the gifts by Agi to the Ademolas were not for gratification.

    Justice Ige said the provisions contradicted the provision of the Constitution, which presume a defendant to be innocent until proved otherwise under the nation’s “accusatorial” criminal justice system.

    He said the appellate court could not review the decision of Justice Jude Okeke of the FCT High Court striking down the provisions as the prosecution failed to file any grounds of appeal against the lower court’s finding.

    “In the absence of an appeal against the lower court’s decision, I cannot decide whether the said provisions apply to this case,” the judge said.

    He added that the judgment of the lower court, striking down the said provisions subsists “forever until they are set aside by a higher court”.

    Justice Ige held that the trial court rightly dismissed the case with all the 18 counts contained in it.

  • Confusion over Justice Ademola’s resignation

    Confusion over Justice Ademola’s resignation

    There is confusion at the Federal High Court, Abuja, over the status of Justice Adeniyi Ademola.

    The judge on Thursday announced his exit from the Bench.

    The confusion followed his decision to hand in his resignation letter dated December 6, 2017, about a month after his earlier letter, dated November 26, 2017, notifying the National Judicial Council (NJC) of his retirement with effect from April next year.

    Justice Ademola’s letter was received in the office of the Acting Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Adamu Kafarati on Thursday morning.

    Although the earlier letter of November 25 has been received by the NJC, The Nation’s investigation revealed the NJC was unaware of the second letter.

    A source at the NJC said the Council was only aware of the November 25 letter, stating among other that he (Justice Ademola was due for retirement in April next year at the attainment of the 65 years mandatory retirement age.

    The letter reads:

    “I hereby voluntarily retire from the Bench of the Federal High Court of Nigeria with effect from December 6, 2017. Thank you. Yours faithfully, Hon. Justice A. F. A. Ademola.”

    “This letter supersedes my previous notice of retirement from the Federal High Court of Nigeria, dated 25/09/2017.”

  • Appeal Court returns Lamido’s trial to Justice Ademola

    Appeal Court returns Lamido’s trial to Justice Ademola

    The Court of Appeal in Abuja has set aside the directive by former Chief Judge of the Federal High Court Abuja, Justice Ibrahim Auta, re-assigning the trial of former Jigawa State Governor, Sule Lamido and others from Justice Adeniyi Ademola to Justice Babatunde Quadri.

    Justice Auta had exercised his administrative power to transfer to case to Justice Quadri at a time Justice Ademola and Lamido’s lawyer; Joe Agi (SAN) were being tried for corruption related offences before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

    At the conclusion of their trial, Agi, led by Kanu Agabi (SAN) challenged Justice Auta;s decision to transfer Lamido and others’ trial to Justice Qaudri for trial to start afresh, when witnesses had been called before Justice Ademola.

    Justice Qaudri rejected the request that the trial be returned to Justice Ademola and proceeded to preside over the trial, a decision Agabi and Agi appealed.

    Justice O. Elechi of the Court of Appeal, who read the unanimous decision of a three-man panel Wednesday, said Section 98 (2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) must be complied with in this instance, as witnesses had been called before Justice Ademola.

    He said: “The power of the Chief Judge shall not be exercised where the prosecution has called witnesses, and in the instance, the prosecution has called 18 witnesses, and so in light of the above, this issue is resolved in favour of the appellant.

    “The application is highly meritorious and is hereby allowed, and in the circumstance, order of the Chief Judge transferring case cannot stand and is hereby set aside and ordered to be re-assigned to Justice Ademola for continuation of trial before him,” Justice Elechi said.

    Other members of the panel were Justices O. Belgore and O. Akinbami.

    Lamido is standing trial along with his sons, Aminu and Mustapha; Wada Abubakar, Bamaina Holdings Ltd, Bamaina Company Nigeria Ltd, Bamaina Aluminium Limted and Speeds Intl Ltd, on an amended 43-count charge of money laundering.

    He is alleged to have abused his office as governor between 2007 and 2015, in awarding contracts to companies in which he and his sons had interests.

    They were first arraigned before Justice Ademola on a 27-count charge, on September 22, 2015. The case progressed before Justice Ademola until Justice Auta, re-assigned the case to Justice Quadri, before whom it started afresh.

    Lamido’s lawyer, Agabi later approached the Court of Appeal after Justice Quadri dismissed two applications brought before the court, one asking that the case be returned to Justice Ademola before whom Lamido’s trial began in 2015, and another accusing the trial judge of bias.

    While arguing against Lamido’s applications during the hearing before Justice Quadri, prosecution lawyer, Chile Okoroma said transferring the case to Justice Ademola could “raise issues on the likelihood of bias.”

    He noted  that Joe Agi, a counsel for Lamido, stood trial along with Justice Ademola, before they were later acquitted of the charges.

    Justice Quadri had, while dismissing the applications, noted that: “In respect to the circumstances of this case, nowhere is it said in the ACJA that where the trial judge is unable to be present for proceeding in a matter, the Chief Judge is constrained from re-assigning the case.

    “At the time the case was transferred, Justice Ademola was not sitting. As it is, amendments have already been made to the charges, upon which the present application was made and argued in this court.”

  • Court reserves judgement in trial of three Policemen

    Court reserves judgement in trial of three Policemen

    …Also five Boko Haram members over 2012 blast in Gombe state

     

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has reserved judgement in the trial of 3 policemen and alleged Five Boko Haram members held in connection with the 2012 bomb of Ashaka police station, Bajoga Local Government in Gombe State.

    According to the prosecution, the incident led the death of the Divisional Police Officer (DPO), Abubakar Sadia (a Superintendent of Police) and three others.

    Justice Adeniyi Ademola announced the reservation of judgment after parties re-adopted their final written submissions Monday.

    They had adopted their addresses earlier, but the court could not deliver judgment within the stipulated time, a development the informed the re adoption of addresses by parties.

    The eight defendants are: Abeimel Ibrahim, Isah Kano, Yambah Umaru, Danbga Wilfred, Cpl Jimmy Oba, PC Michael Manu, PC Iliya Mark and Sadeeq Ali Amatiga.

    Re-adopting her address, prosecution lawyer, Chigozie Umenzekwe argued that, from the evidence led and witnesses’ testimonies, the prosecution has proved the offences of conspiracy, murder, destruction of public property and membership of the Boko Haram, for which the defendants were tried.

    Umenzekwe noted that documentary evidence before the court showed that the defendants were responsible for the death of the DP0 in charge of Bodiga Police  station, attack on Zenith and Finbank banks branches that were burnt, and that the defendants were members of Boko Haram.

    The prosecution lawyer noted that the confessional statement of the 1st defendant, Abimael Ibrahim, which was admitted in evidence by the court, provided details of how the attack was planned and executed by the defendants.

    She urged the court to convict the defendants as charged.

    Lawyer to the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th defendants, Nanpong Wuyep urged the court disregard the argument by the prosecution.

    Wuyep, who argued that the prosecution failed to prove its case and link his clients with the offences alleged, prayed the court to discharge and acquit his clients,

    Lawyer to the 3rd defendant (Yambali Umaru), Khamagam Kemiel argued that the only evidence produced by the prosecution seeking to link the 3rd defendant and other defendants with the commission of the alleged serious crime “is a mere sheet of paper which is Exhibit 22A”.

    Exhibit 22A was the confessional statement made by the 1st defendant; Exhibit Gombe 3 was the 1st statement of the 1st defendant made before the Police in Gombe; while Exhibit 22 was another statement the 1st defendant made where he mentioned names of the other suspects.

    Kemiel further argued that the three statements were inconsistent and cannot stand in the face of law.

    The defence lawyer contended that he has shown to the court, in his written address, that there is no legally admitted evidence, which connect the 3rd defendant with the commission of the offence.

    He added: “Not only that, we have also demonstrated that even the so-called Exhibit 22A, when considered together with Exhibit 3 and 4, then it would be manifestly unreliable and unsafe for this court or any other tribunal to convict based on same.”

    Kemiel urged the court to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the 3rd defendant and other defendants beyond reasonable doubt as required.

    A count in the charge against the defendants reads: “That you Abeimel Ibrahim (m) of Unguwan Alheri, Ashaka Gombe state, (2) Isah Kano (m) of A14 Workers Village Ashaka Cement Gombe, (3) Yambah Umaru of Ashaka Town Bajoga Gombe, (4) Danbga Wilfred of Ashaka Town Bajoga Gombe, (5) Cpl Jimmy Oba’a of Nigeria Police Force Bajoga Division Gombe state, (6) PC Michael Manu of Nigeria Police Force Bajoga Division Gombe state, (7) PC Iliya Mark, Nigeria Police Force Bajoga Division Gombe, (8) Sadeeq Ali Amatiga (m) of Ashaka Town, Gunakaye LGA Gombe state and others at large on 7/3/2012 at 1900 hrs conspired and agreed among yourselves while armed with different types of ammunitions and dangerous weapons and explosives to kill innocent people and destruction of public properties under the name of Boko Haram in Ashaka in Bajoga LGA of Gombe state, an offence which is punishable under Section 516 of the Criminal Code Act Law of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.”

  • We have pending appeal against Justice Ademola’s acquittal – AGF

    We have pending appeal against Justice Ademola’s acquittal – AGF

    The office of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) said Thursday that it has pending appeal against the April 5 ruling by Justice Jude Okeke of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) acquitting Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court, his wife and a lawyer, Joe Agi (SAN).

    Justice Okeke had, in the ruling, upheld the no-case submission by Justice Ademola and his co-defendants, charged with corruption related offences.

    Justice Ademola has since resumed duties following last week’s directive by the National Judicial Council (NJC) that judges, suspended owing to their investigation by the Department of State Services (DSS), should resume duties.

    In a statement Thursday, Special Assistant to the President on Prosecution, but attached to the office of the AGF, Okoi Obono-Obla said the impression being created with the NJC’s recall of the suspended judges was that it was unaware of a pending appeal against Justice Ademola’s acquittal.

    Obono-Obla said: “I want to debunk the false impression created in some sections of the media that the NJC was not aware or that there was no appeal filed by the Office of the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation against the ruling of Honourable Justice Jude Okeke of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja dated the 5th April, 2017 in Charge No. CR/21/2016 between Federal Republic of Nigeria versus Adeniyi Francis Adetokunbo Ademola and two others which discharged and acquitted the defendants.

    “Nothing can be further from the truth. Indeed, the office of the Honourable General of the Federation filed notices of appeal against the ruling of Honourable Justice Jude Okeke of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja over his ruling discharging and acquitting the three defendants on the 7th April, 2017.

    “Accordingly, the Court of Appeal pursuant to Order 8 Rule 2 (a) of the Court of Appeal Rules has invited Counsel to the Appellant (the Federal Republic of Nigeria) and the Respondents to attend Court on the 6th June 2017 to reconcile documents for record of appeal.

    “I therefore state without fear of contradiction that the appeal against the ruling of Honourable Justice Jude Okeke of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja discharging and acquitting the defendants Charge No. CR/21/2016 between Federal Republic of Nigeria versus Adeniyi Francis Adetokunbo Ademola and two others is pending before the Court of Appeal.”

     

  • Justice Ademola resumes duties

    Justice Ademola resumes duties

    Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court, Abuja resumed duties Wednesday in line with a recent directive by the National Judicial Council (NJC) directing six suspended judges to resume duties.

    The judges were those suspended last year following their investigation by the Department of State Services (DSS) on allegations of corruption.

    They include Justices Ademola (of the Federal High Court), John Okoro (of the Supreme Court), Hydiazira A. Nganjiwa (Federal High Court), Musa H. Kurya (Federal High Court) and  Agbadu James Fishim (National Industrial Court of Nigeria).

    Of the six judges, The Nation has been able to confirm Justice Ademola”s resumption. He sat at exactly 9.30am and has been sitting since then, attending to cases.

    One of the early callers in Justice Ademola’s court this morning was Joe Agi (SAN), whose case was taken first.

    Agi stood trial with Justice Ademola in the alleged corruption case brought against them, including the judge’s wife, before a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), which freed the defendants on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove its case.

    The prosecution said it has since appealed the judgment of the High Court of the FCT.

    Meanwhile Justice Babatunde Quadri (also of the Federal High Court, Abuja, will rule on July 7 on an application by Agi seeking the return of the case involving former Jigawa State governor, Sule Lamido to Justice Ademola.

    Lamido, who is being tried with seven others, including his two sons and five firms on 27-count charge, is accused of engaging abuse of office and money laundering involving about N1.3billion.

    They were being tried before Justice Ademola until the judge’s suspension late last year, following which the Chief judge of the Federal High Court; Justice Ibrahim Auta transferred the case to Justice Quadri.

    Rather than allow the trial to start afresh before the new judge, Agi queried the transfer of the case and asked that it be returned to Justice Ademola for the trial to continue, a request the prosecution objected to.

  • NJC directs Justices Ademola, Okoro, others to resume duties June 7

    NJC directs Justices Ademola, Okoro, others to resume duties June 7

    The National Judicial Council (NJC) has directed judges suspended last year  for alleged corruption to resume work on June 7.

    The judges were probed for alleged  corruption by the Department of State Service (DSS).

    They were subsequently suspended based on the  request of the Attorney- General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami (SAN) and the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA).

    The NJC, in a statement issued on Saturday by its Director of Information, Soji Oye, directed heads of the affected judges’ courts to ensure they resume work next Wednesday.

    The affected judges include Justice Adeniyi Ademola (Federal High Court), Justice John Okoro (Supreme Court), Justice Hydiazira A. Nganjiwa (Federal High Court), Justice Musa H. Kurya (Federal High Court), Justice Agbadu James Fishim (National Industrial Court of Nigeria) and Justice Uwani Abba Aji (Court of Appeal).

    The statement said the Council took the decision to recall the judges at the end of its 82nd meeting held between May 31 and June 1.

    According to the statement, NJC issued warnings to some other judges and dismissed petitions against 12 others.

    It reads: “The NJC, under the Chairmanship of Hon. Justice Walter. S. N. Onnoghen, at its 82nd meeting which was held on 31st May and 1st June, 2017, considered the case of eight judicial officers who were directed to excuse themselves from duties on the request of the Attorney-General of the Federation pending the outcome of investigations against them.

    “To maintain the integrity and sanctity of the judiciary and sustain public confidence, the judicial officers were directed to excuse themselves from office with effect from 2nd November, 2016.

    “After deliberation, NJC noted that out of the judicial officers directed to excuse themselves from performing their official duties, only three have been charged to court.

    “They are:- Hon. Justice N. S. Ngwuta, CFR, of the Supreme Court of Nigeria; Hon. Justice A. F. A. Ademola of the Federal High Court; and Hon. Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia of the Federal High Court.

    “The trial of Hon. Justice A. F. A. Ademola has been concluded and he has been discharged and acquitted of the charges filed against him.

    “In view of the foregoing, Council decided that the various heads of court should direct the following judicial officers to resume their judicial duties with effect from Wednesday 7th June, 2017, as there are already backlog of cases in their various court for the past eight months.

    “They are Hon. Justice John Inyang Okoro of the Supreme Court; Hon. Justice Uwani Abba Aji of the Court of Appeal; Hon. Justice Hydiazira A. Nganjiwa of the Federal High Court; Hon. Justice A. F. A. Ademola of the Federal High Court who has been discharged and acquitted; Hon. Justice Musa H. Kurya of the Federal High Court; and Hon. Justice Agbadu James Fishim of National Industrial Court of Nigeria.”

     

     

  • Court frees Justice Ademola, wife

    Court frees Justice Ademola, wife

    Justice Jude Okeke of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in  Maitama has struck out the 18-count  charge Justice Adeniyi Ademola (of the Federal High Court), his wife, Olabowale and a lawyer, Joe Agi (SAN).
    The office of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF)  had filed the suit late last year, in which they were accused of engaging in corrupt acts. Justice Ademola, was among others, accused of accepting gratification from Agi.
    His wife was accused of receiving N30million in her GT Bank account on behalf of her husband, while Agi was accused of bribing the judge, including buying an N8.5million car for his (the judge’s) son.
    In a ruling on Wedenesday, Justice Okeke upheld the no-case submission by the defendants, on the ground that  the prosecution, led by Segun Jegede, failed to prove any of the allegations it made against them.
    The judge said, not only did the prosecution fail to show that Justice Ademola benefited from the money allegedly paid to his wife’s account, it also failed to link the N30m Mrs Ademola received from Agi, SAN, to any particular case being handled by her husband.
    He noted that the prosecution did not tender any evidence, showing that the N30m was at any time, transferred to any bank account that belongs to the 1st defendant (Ademola).
    “None of the witnesses identified or tendered evidence to show that N30m was paid into any bank account of the 1st defendant either by the 2nd or the 3rd defendants”.
    Justice Okeke, who said he took cognisance of a statement Agi made before the Department of State Service (DSS), admitting that two of his clients directed him to pay the N30m to Mrs Ademola as gift during her daughters wedding in April, 2015, said  the lead investigator, (who testified as PW-16), could not establish any link between the monetary gift and any case that was handled by the 1st defendant.
    The judge said: “This court totally agrees with the PW-16 that taking the N30m gift the 3rd defendant paid into the account of the 2nd defendant as bribe will be speculative and no court can convict based on speculation.
    “A court of law reckons with hardcore evidence placed before it and not on speculation as to why the payments were made,” Justice Okeke said.
    The judge, after reviewing all the evidence, in a judgment that lasted about five hours, said the prosecution failed to discharge the burden of proof placed upon it by the law.
    The judge discharged and acquitted the defendants.
    Today’s ruling ends the case, expect the prosecution appeals and the appellate court directed that it be reopened.
  • Justice Ademola, others seek dismissal of charges against them

    Justice Ademola, others seek dismissal of charges against them

    …Fault prosecution’s case

     

    Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court, his wife, Olabowale and a senior Advocate of Nigeria, Joe Agi have faulted the case of the prosecution in their trial and asked a High Court of the Federal Capital territory (FCT) to dismiss the charge brought against them by the office of the Attorney General of the Federation.

    Arguing their no-case submission Wednesday, the three, who are being tried on an 18-count charge in which they are accused of among others, of accepting gratification and illegal possession of firearms, argued that the prosecution was unable to establish a prima facie case against them

    The prosecution, led by Segun Jegede, closed its case on February 21 this year after calling16 witnesses and tendering some documents as exhibits. Rather than conduct their defence, the defendants chose to make a no-case submission.

    Adopting his client’s no-case submission Wednesday, Justice Ademola’s lawyer, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN) said: “We urge my lord to respectfully hold that the prosecution did not establish prima facie case to warrant the first defendant (Justice Ademola) to enter his defence.”

    He noted that the testimony of the prosecution’s main witness – an operative of the Department of State Service (DSS), Babatunde Adepoju – who investigated the case, revealed that the N30m paid by Agi into Justice Ademola’s wife’s account could not have been meant for gratification to induce the judge.

    Ikpeazu said by the provision of Section 17(1)(b) of the Corrupt Practices and other related offences Act, under which the defendants were charged for the offence of gratification, the prosecution was required to prove that the N30m and the car, were not just “gifts or considerations,” but that they constituted “an inducement or reward” for a particular act of the judge.

    He added: “As far as this case is concerned, the prosecution has not made out a case that the N30m was received in order to influence the first defendant. There is no link. As far as there is no link, there is no reason why the first defendant should proceed to enter his defence.”

    Ikpeazu said the same principle applied to the N8.5m car which Agi was said to have bought for the judge’s son.

    He argued that the charges relating to illegal possession of firearms could not stand in the light of the licences for the two guns, which were recovered from Justice Ademola’s house during the DSS raid, having been tendered.

    Ikpeazu said since the testimony of PW16 indicating that the two licences covering years 2016 to 2018 were “current” and the failure of the prosecution to call Justice Mohammed as a witness, there was no further explanation left to be made by Justice Ademola and so he (Justice Ademola) could not be held liable for being in illegal possession of firearms

    Lawyer to the judge’s wife, Robert Clarke (SAN) argued that the prosecution failed to produce any evidence before the court to prove that the N30 million was given to Mrs. Ademola to influence Justice Ademola’s judicial functions.

    “No iota of evidence was brought before your lordship to show that the money was meant for inducement. The investigative officer (PW16) said he never investigated the second defendant.  He said what drew his attention was the money transferred by the third defendant (Agi) to the second defendant (Olubowale).

    “As far as that Count 2 is concerned, nothing has been brought before your lordship to warrant us to give an answer. In her statement, she said she used the money to pay for the event of her daughter’s wedding.

    “They (the prosecution) have not laid any evidence of fraud or corruption to warrant us to answer. She (Olubowale) said in her statement that she had never transferred any money to the first defendant,” Clarke said.

    Agi’s lawyer, Jeph Njikonye argued that the counts against his client were incompetent.

    He said, “There are two essential ingredients for there to be a valid charge (of gratification) under section 17(1)(b) of the Corrupt Practices and other related offences Act. The first element is that the person charged agrees to give or offers to give a gift – that is a mandatory element.

    “The second element is that such gift must be a reward for doing or fore-bearing to do something. For there to be a valid charge, these essential elements must be present in a charge,” he said.

    Jegede Jegede argued that the Supreme Court has held that a prima facie case must be distinguished from prove of guilt.

    He said all that is needed at this stage of the trial is for a link to be established between the evidence led and the charge filed against the defendants.

    Jegede said Agi, in his extra-judicial statement, showed that he told Justice Ademola about the N30 million and was instructed to pay the money into Mrs. Ademola’s account. He said that was the link necessary for a prima facie case to be established.

    The prosecution lawyer said even though there was no evidence to show that Mrs. Ademola transferred the money to Justice Ademola, the money was jointly used for their daughter’s wedding.

    He added that Agi was entitled to 20% ($620 million) of the $3.2 billion garnishee order given by Justice Ademola around the period he paid the N30 million into the account of Mrs. Ademola.

    Jegede said: “There are lots of issues and questions the defendants have to answer making the no-case submissions to be such that should not be granted.”

    The prosecution lawyer said the expired firearms license found in the judge’s house was still in the custody of the DSS, and could not have been a renewed copy, but an entirely new one that was tendered through PW16.

    Jegede argued that to prove the offence of illegal possession of firearm, the prosecution only had to show that the accused was found in possession of the firearm and that the accused has no valid license to possess the firearm. He urged the court to dismiss the no-case submissions.

    Justice Jude Okeke adjourned to April 5 for ruling.

  • ‘Why we investigated Justice Ademola’

    ‘Why we investigated Justice Ademola’

    An official of the Department of State Services (DSS), Babatunde Adepoju told a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) on Monday that the agency’s investigation of Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court was informed by allegations of wrongdoing.
    Adepoju said the intelligence in his brief included allegations that Justice Ademola received bribes from former National Security Adviser (NSA), Sambo Dasuki and Biafra agitator, Nnamdi Kanu to grant them bail. 
    The DSS operative said he was directed on October 9 last year to investigate allegations of bribery involving Justice Ademola. 
    Adepoju, who testified as a prosecution witness in the ongoing trial of Justice Ademola, his wife, Olabowale and a lawyer, Joe Agi (SAN), said he was also directed to investigate of one Honourable Jenkins Gwede, who wrote a petition against Justice Ademola at the National Judicial Council (NJC), alleging that the judge  collected $200,000 to discharge an earlier garnishee order granted in his favour. 
    Led in evidence by lead prosecution lawyer, Segun Jegede, the witnesS told the court he was equally directed to investigate an allegation that Justice Ademola influenced the appointment of his wife as the Head of Service of Lagos State through his close relationship with former Lagos Governor, Bola Tinubu and his position as a Federal High Court judge.
    The witness confirmed that Justice Ademola denied all the allegations. 
    Adepoju said upon investigation, there was no evidence to prove that Justice Ademola influenced the appointment of his wife as HOS of Lagos State. 
    The witness said there was equally no evidence to support Jenkins’ allegations. 
    Adepoju said Justice Ademola told him that Jenkins apologised to him, two days after submitting the petition to the NJC, stating that he was misinformed by lawyers to the Delta State Government.
    The witness added that Justice Ademola told him that he (Jenkins) swore to an affidavit in which he withdrew the petition.
    He said he did not also find evidence to prove that Justice Ademola collected bribe to grant bail to Sambo Dasuki or Nnamdi Kanu. “They were hearsays”, he said. 
    Adepoju said investigation also supported Justice Ademola’s claim that the prosecution, in the Dasuki case, did not oppose Dasuki’s bail application. 
    Adepoju said Agi made a statement to the DSS, in which he said the N30 million he was accused of paying into the account of Mrs Ademola was at the instance of two of his clients: Ken Hubert and Bassey Bassey who instructed him to donate $150,000 in support of the Ademolas’ daughter’s wedding. 
    He said when they contacted the two individuals named by Agi, they confirmed instructing the donation.
    The witness said investigation also revealed that Justice Ademola granted three garnishee orders in excess of $636 million, $637 million and $3.1 billion in favour of a client of Joe Agi around the period Joe Agi paid N30 million in three tranches of N10 million each into the accounts of Mrs Ademola.
    He said Justice Ademola told him during interrogation that some of the money recovered from his residence were the conversion of the estacodes he got and withdrawals from his accounts for onward payment to a construction company, Dadks Concept that was carrying out a major construction at one of his properties at 55 Oduduwa Crescent, Lagos.
    Under cross-examination, Adepoju said he is aware that estacodes are given in foreign currencies, adding that he is also aware that whether to spend or not to spend the estacodes remains the business of the receiver of the estacodes. 
    Adepoju said, from available records, there are other sources of income for Justice Ademola.
    The witness said he came across a lodgement of $520,000 by Olabode Johnson of Johnson & Johnson partners in the statement of account of Justice Ademola. 
    “From the record provided by the firm, it was a large sum shared to three brothers with Justice Ademola. From Johnson & Johnson record, the money was from sale of property belonging to Justice Ademola and two other brothers,” he said.
    Further hearing resumes today.