The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Justice Mohammed Idris

  • Court adjourns Patience Jonathan’s $15.591m case for hearing

    Court adjourns Patience Jonathan’s $15.591m case for hearing

    The Federal High Court in Lagos Thursday adjourned hearing of Mrs Patience Jonathan’s suit seeking to unfreeze her accounts till November 2.

    The accounts are said to have $15.591million in them.

    Justice Mohammed Idris had on May 8 held that Mrs Jonathan and other parties must give oral evidence on the money’s ownership.

    According to him, all the defendants’ counter-affidavits contain disputed facts that could not be decided without oral evidence.

    “In my view, the facts are contentious, and oral evidence needs to be led by the parties herein. In the light of the above facts, this case is generally not suitable for an originating summons procedure.

    “In the circumstances, the court hereby orders that the parties herein file pleadings in accordance with the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2009 and trial shall then proceed accordingly,” Justice Idris held.

    The EFCC had urged the court not to unfreeze the accounts because the money was suspected to be “proceed of crime”.

    Skye Bank Plc, Jonathan’s former aide Waripamo-Owei Dudafa, Pluto Property and Investment Company Ltd, Seagate Property Development and Investment Company Ltd, Trans Ocean Property and Investment Company Ltd and Avalon Global Property Development Ltd are the other respondents.

    The companies, through their representatives, had pleaded guilty to laundering the money last September 15 when they were arraigned before Justice Babs Kuewumi of the same court.

    They were charged along with Dudafa, Briggs and a banker, Adedamola Bolodeoku, for allegedly laundering the money.

    Unlike the companies, Dudafa, Briggs and Bolodeoku pleaded not guilty to the 17-count charge.

    In a supporting affidavit to her application, Mrs Jonathan’s aide, Sammie Somiari, said Dudafa helped the former first lady to open the accounts around March 2010.

    The deponent claimed Mrs Jonathan was the sole signatory to the accounts and that she had no relationship with the companies.

  • Tariff hike: Judge erred for denying NERC fair hearing – Appeal Court

    Tariff hike: Judge erred for denying NERC fair hearing – Appeal Court

    The Court of Appeal in Lagos on Monday came hard on a judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Mohammed Idris, for denying the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC) of fair hearing in a suit on electricity tariff increment.

    It held that the judge, who heard the case and restrained NERC from hiking tariff, violated the appellant’s right to fair hearing and thereby committed “a grave error.”

    “The trial court accorded undue reverence and relevance to technicality. The era of technical justice is gone in our courts. Substantial justice is key,” the Court of Appeal held.

    It ordered the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Ibrahim Auta, to re-assign the case to a new judge for adjudication. Activist-lawyer Toluwani Adebiyi sued NERC over a planned increase in electricity tariff.

    He argued that tariff could not be increased when there were constant power outages and exorbitant estimated bills.

    Justice Idris made an interim order that status quo be maintained. The order, in effect, barred NERC from increasing the tariff.

    But NERC, through its lawyer Chief Anthony Idigbe (SAN), of Punuka Attorneys and Solicitors, filed a motion on notice seeking to discharge the interim order.

    Justice Idris, in his ruling, dismissed NERC’s application for being filed outside the seven days prescribed by the court’s rules.

    The judge similarly dismissed NERC’s preliminary objection on the basis that it was also filed out of time.

    Dissatisfied, the Commission challenged Justice Idris’ rulings at the appellate court.

    Delivering judgments in the appeals on Monday, Justice Abraham Georgewill held that judge misused his powers of discretion.

    The appeal court held that the judge “approbated and reprobated” when he heard NERC’s application to regularise its processes, and still set aside the appellant’s motion to discharge the interim order.

    Justice Georgewill said Justice Idris relied on technicality in denying NERC of fair hearing, thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice.

     

  • Judge dismisses request to transfer INEC officials’ case

    Judge dismisses request to transfer INEC officials’ case

    Justice Mohammed Idris of the Federal High Court in Lagos on Wednesday refused to transfer the case of two Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) officials, Christian Nwosu and Tijani Inda Bashir, who were accused of receiving bribe, to another judge.

    The judge rejected an application filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) that he should hands off the case having rejected Nwosu’s plea bargain agreement.

    Justice Idris held that since the defendants were re-arraigned on an amended charge and pleaded not guilty, Nwosu’s earlier plea of guilty no longer matters.

    The defendants were accused of receiving N30million bribe from former Minister of Petroleum Resources, Diezani Alison-Madueke, to rig the 2015 general election results.

    They were arraigned alongside Yisa Adedoyin, who pleaded guilty to receiving N70.050 million cash payment from the former minister, who is named in the charge but is “at large.”

    Nwosu pleaded guilty when he was first arraigned, but Justice Idris rejected a plea bargain agreement he reached with the EFCC on the basis that it was not “appropriate.”

    Justice Idris gave Nwosu the option of changing his plea to not guilty, or accepting a heavier sentence, including N10million fine as provided in the law.

    Nwosu changed his plea to not guilty when he was re-arraigned.

    EFCC’s lawyer Rotimi Oyedepo, said based on Section 270 (15) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, the judge should return the case-file for re-assignment to another judge, as he could be accused of bias later, having rejected the plea bargain agreement.

    But, Nwosu’s lawyer, Victor Opara, said since the judge had rejected the plea bargain agreement for not being in compliance with the law, it indicated that there was no plea bargain.

    However, Justice Idris held on Wednesday that since the defendants were re-arraigned on an amended charge, it was as if they were arraigned for the first time.

    “I agree with the view that the prosecution having amended the charge and fresh plea taken by the first defendant in line with the ACJA, the court is being enjoined to commence fresh proceedings as if he has been arraigned for the first time.

    “Section 217 (1) and (2) of the ACJA says: ‘Where a new charge is framed or alteration made to a charge under the provisions of section 216 of this Act, the court shall call on the defendant to plead to the new or altered charge as if he has been arraigned for the first time.

    “‘The court shall proceed with the trial as if the new or altered charge had been the original charge,” the judge held.

     

  • ‘N11b fuel theft’: DSS fails to produce Ubah, files objection

    ‘N11b fuel theft’: DSS fails to produce Ubah, files objection

    …Gets fresh order to detain businessman

     

    The Department of State Services (DSS) Friday failed to produce Managing Director of Capital Oil and Gas Limited, Ifeanyi Ubah, as ordered by Justice Mohammed Idris of the Federal High Court in Lagos.

    The DSS instead filed a preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction to entertain Ubah’s suit.

    Its lawyer Mr Peter Oluremodu said Ubah was not produced because there was an order to detain him for 14 days issued by a Federal Capital Territory High Court.

    He said the DSS obtained the order in line with the provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015.

    Justice Idris had on May 9 ordered the DSS to produce Ubah in court to show because why he should not be released unconditionally.

    But, Ubah’s lawyer, Mr Raphael Oluyede, urged Justice Idris to hold that the DSS violated his order by not producing Ubah in court yesterday.

    He said the FCT High Court’s order was obtained to frustrate Justice Idris’ order, adding that it amounted to a challenge of the court’s majesty.

    “The respondents have not shown cause as why they failed to comply with your lordship’s order. Instead, they took steps to subvert the order. They acted in contempt of that order.

    “The court in Abuja was not informed about the order to produce him in Lagos. Their preliminary objection is not relevant to the consideration of whether they have obeyed the order to produce him.

    “I urge your lordship to consider the dignity of the court as paramount and to order Ubah’s unconditional release,” he said.

    Oluyede said Ubah was first arrested by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on March 19 and was released on April 14, after three weeks in detention.

    He said Ubah was “coerced” to sign a document acknowledging indebtedness to the Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) and to pledge some of his assets.

    He said EFCC also forced him to withdraw a fundamental rights suit he filed before he was released.

    He said after Ubah’s release, he approached the court again to stop his re-arrest.

    Oluyede said when the DSS invited Ubah, he wrote the agency about his pending suit.

    The lawyer said the DSS arrested his client despite being told about the suit.

    He accused the DSS of abusing its powers, and urged the court to hold that Ubah’s detention was contemptuous.

    Ruling, Justice Idris held that it would be wrong for him to order for Ubah’s release since a court of coordinate jurisdiction had issued an order that he be detained for 14 days.

    Justice Idris said his records show that the DSS was served with his order on May 10.

    “It appears that on the same date, ie, May 10, 2017, the fourth and fifth respondents (DSS and its Director-General) obtained from an FCT High Court an order allowing them to detain the first applicant (Ubah) in their custody for an initial period of 14 days pending the completion of investigation.

    “It is clear that there is a direct conflict between the order of this court and the order of my learned brother Y. Haliru J. A conflict situation has been created. It is sad and unfortunate.

    “Courts of coordinate jurisdiction have been cautioned in situations like this. I will in the circumstances of this case and the pronouncements of the learned Law Lords of the Supreme Court, act ex abundanti cautela (Latin phrase for ‘out of abundant caution’).

    “I will not make any order that will have the effect of neutralising the orders made by the FCT High Court. There must be discipline in the law. In insist on discipline in the law.

    “In the light of the orders of the FCT High Court made on the 10th of May 2017, I will not make an order for the release of the applicant.

    “Since the parties in this case have been served and the matter had been adjourned till the 18th day of May 2017, I shall adjourn till the 18th day of May 2017 when the substantive suit and all objection on jurisdiction will be taken together. This is the order of the court.”

    Ubah prayed the court to compel DSS release him from its custody.

    The EFCC, the DSS Director-General, NNPC and the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON) are among the respondents.

    The DSS arrested Ubah over alleged “economic sabotage” and “illegal sale of petroleum products stored in his tank farm by the NNPC”.

    “So far, it has been established that the products stolen amount to over N11billion,” the DSS said in a statement.

    In a supporting affidavit to Ubah’s application, Capital Oil’s Secretary, George Oranuba, said the arrest was over allegations made by the NNPC and AMCON, which were already subject of a lawsuit.

    Oranuba said a “throughput agreement” between Capital Oil and NNPC allows for “conversion and diversion of products by ‘operators’ so long as the operator is prepared to re-deliver the products within seven days of demand by the product’s owner or to pay a penalty for non-re-delivery”.

    According to him, the failure to re-deliver was a “mere” breach of contract, which can be remedied by the payment of penalty to the owner, and was not a criminal act for which Ubah should be arrested.

    “The throughput agreement expressly states that any penalty due for non-re-delivery is to be treated as a debt and I verily believe that law enforcement agencies are not allowed to operate as debt collectors,” the deponent said.

    Oranuba also said NNPC was indebted to Capitol Oil in “excess of N13billion”, yet the company did not call law enforcement agencies to collect the debt.

     

  • Court refuses to unfreeze Patience Jonathan’s account

    Court refuses to unfreeze Patience Jonathan’s account

    A Federal High Court in Lagos on Monday refused a request by Dame Patience Jonathan, seeking to unfreeze her accounts, having about 15.5 million dollars.

    Justice Mohammed Idris ordered parties to file pleadings since issues had been joined as to the ownership of the money.

    The judge held that all the defendants formulated different issues from those formulated by the plaintiff in the originating summons, saying it was unacceptable.

    “The issues formulated by all the defendants are baseless. They amount to no issue and will be ignored by the court.

    “I hold that this court lacks the competence to determine the issues raised by the defendants in their written addresses, having abandoned the specific issues formulated by the plaintiff in the originating summons.

    “It is unfortunate. I say this because the issues raised by the defendants appear on the face of it, are good and deserving to be considered on their merit.

    “But as I understand it to be the law, sentiment has no basis in the adjudicatory system.”

    Idris said that where processes were not properly prepared, any defect would render the proceeding fatal as the court cannot “re-formulate” the issues for determination.

    He held that there was a contention as to issues and facts in relation to the ownership of the money.

    “In respect of this issue, the contention appears divided and there is clearly an air of friction in the proceedings.”

    According to him, all the counter-affidavits filed by the defendants contain disputed facts that cannot be decided without oral evidence.

    “In the light of the above affidavit evidence, it cannot in my view be rightly contended that there are no disputed facts or substance as to the ownership of the said funds and the law.

    “The issues of fact raised by the defendants herein are not spurious or irrelevant. The affidavit of the plaintiff is also not conjectural.

    “In my view, the facts are contentious and oral evidence needs to be led by the parties herein.

    “In the light of the above facts, this case is generally not suitable for an originating summons procedure.
    “In the circumstances, the court hereby orders that the parties herein file pleadings in accordance with the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2009.

    “Trial shall then proceed accordingly. This is the order of the court,” Idris held.

    The News Agency of Nigeria recalls that Jonathan had prayed the court to order the EFCC to unfreeze her Skye Bank accounts to enable her access the money.

    She joined as respondents: EFCC, Skye Bank Plc, Jonathan’s former aide Waripamo-Owei Dudafa, Pluto Property and Investment Company Ltd., and Seagate Property Development and Investment Company Ltd.

    Also joined are Trans Ocean Property and Investment Company Ltd. and Avalon Global Property Development Ltd. are the respondents.

    On September 15, 2016, when they were arraigned, the companies, had through their representatives, pleaded guilty before Justice Babs Kuweumi, to the laundering of the money.

    They were charged along with Dudafa, Amajuoyi Briggs and a banker, Adedamola Bolodeoku, for laundering the money.

    Unlike the companies, Dudafa, Briggs and Bolodeoku pleaded not guilty to the 17-count charge.
    In a supporting affidavit to Jonathan’s suit, deposed to by one Sammie Somiari, he said that Dudafa helped the former first lady to open the accounts.

    He said that Dudafa on March 22, 2010, brought two Skye Bank officers, Demola Bolodeoku and Dipo Oshodi, to meet Jonathan.

    The deponent had claimed that Jonathan was the sole signatory to the accounts and that she had no relationship with the companies.

  • Ladoja: Court threatens to arrest attorney-general for ‘contempt’

    The Federal High Court in Lagos Wednesday threatened to order the arrest of Oyo State Attorney-General Oluseun Abimbola and a staff of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Yinka Fatoki, for allegedly flouting its summons.

    Justice Mohammed Idris issued a summons on February 20 for Fatoki to produce some documents needed by the defence.

    The judge also issued a subpoena on February 24 for the Attorney-General.

    Defence counsel in the trial of former Governor Rashidi Ladoja applied to the court to order them to produce the documents.

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) re-arraigned Ladoja for allegedly converting N4.7billion from the state treasury to his personal use.

    He was charged along with Waheed Akanbi on eight counts of money laundering and unlawful conversion of public funds.

    While cross-examining a prosecution witness – former Senior Special Executive Assistant to Ladoja Mr. Adewale Atanda, the former governor’s lawyer, Bolaji Onilenla, said efforts to get the required documents were unsuccessful.

    He said he wanted to tender them, including official mandates for the disposal of Oyo’s share’s under Ladoja, through the witness.

    “If by tomorrow (today) the Oyo Attorney-General does not produce the documents, we shall be compelled to invoke the consequences of non-compliance.

    “They have not offered any excuse but have been treating the order of court with disdain and levity.

    “The documents sought to be produced are quite central and germane to our defence. We will apply that a warrant be issued against them – we don’t care who they are,” he said.

    Justice Idris noted that his record shows that the Attorney-General and Fatoki were duly served with the summons and subpoena.

    According to him, they had a duty to appear in court having received the summons duly issued, signed and served, adding that “they have no choice”.

    Justice Idris said: “This court frowns at public officers who refuse to appear in court when summons have been issued for them to appear. They have no right to refuse to appear.

    “Therefore, when this court is properly called upon, the court will issue a warrant for their arrest and production in court if they refuse to appear.

    “Let the Attorney-General and Fatoki be warned that they must appear in court.”

    Testifying Wednesday, Atanda said lawyers who defended Ladoja following his impeachment charged him N50million when the case was at the High Court.

    “When there was success at the Court of Appeal and a date had been fixed at the Supreme Court, the team of lawyers said the initial fee was just for the High Court, and that they didn’t know the case would get to the Supreme Court.

    “So, they revised their fees to N350million. Ladoja promised them that if we’re successful at the Supreme Court, we’ll pay the amount because we didn’t have money then.

    “They demanded for a good faith payment, which was why I took a loan and paid them N35million,” Atanda said.

    The witness said he also served as chairman of Oyo State Housing Corporation under Ladoja and had the privilege of sitting in the executive council meetings as an aide.

    He was the shares disposed of by the Ladoja administration was up to 300million units and that they were sold to a firm which offered the best price for the purchase.

    The EFCC accused Ladoja and Akanbi of converting N1,932,940,032.48 belonging to Oyo to their personal use through the Guaranty Trust Bank account of a company, Heritage Apartments Limited despite knowing that it was proceed of crime.

    The prosecution said Ladoja removed £600,000 (about N240,219,945) from the state coffers in 2007 and sent it to Bimpe Ladoja in London.

    Ladoja also allegedly bought an armoured Land Cruiser jeep with N42million for himself using public funds.

    EFCC said he converted N728,600,000 and another N77,850,000 at different times in 2007, and allegedly transferred N77, 850,000 to Bistrum Investments, which he nominated to help him purchase a property named Quarter 361 in Ibadan, Oyo State capital.

    The alleged offence contravenes sections 17(a) and18 (1) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2004, punishable under sections 14(1), 16(a) (b) and 18(2).

    Ladoja and Akanbi pleaded not guilty.

     

     

  • EFCC’s trial of Ladoja for alleged N4.7b theft aborted

    EFCC’s trial of Ladoja for alleged N4.7b theft aborted

    The trial of former Oyo State Governor Rashidi Ladoja was aborted Tuesday after Justice Mohammed Idris of the Federal High Court in Lagos insisted that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) must comply with the law.

    Eight years after he was first arraigned, EFCC re-arraigned Ladoja for allegedly converting N4.7billion from the state treasury to his personal use.

    He was charged along with Waheed Akanbi on eight counts of money laundering and unlawful conversion of public funds.

    Prosecution counsel Femi Olabisi called his first witness, an EFCC investigator, Abdullahi Lawal.

    As the operative was about to begin his testimony, Ladoja’s lawyer Bolaji Onilenle and Akanbi’s lawyer Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika objected to Lawal’s testimony on the basis that he was not listed as a prosecution witness.

    Onilenle said: “His name is not on the list of witnesses. We’re being taken by surprise. Section 379 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 mandates the prosecution to make a list of witnesses available to defendants.”

    Olumide-Fusika also objected for the same reasons, saying they had no idea what the witness was going to say and was not prepared to cross-examine him.

    “EFCC ought to be ready before bringing us to court, not to start putting their house in order after arraignment. They must be ready before arraignment,” he said.

    Olabisi, who apologised for the commission’s lack of adequate preparation, said the case was prepared before the ACJA came into effect.

    He sought for more time to “put his house in order”, including getting his witnesses to prepare their statements.

    He asked that the dates previously fixed for the trial, including today and tomorrow, be vacated so he could have more time to prepare.

    Adebisi said some of his witnesses were in Abuja, Kaduna and Port Harcourt, so he would need enough time to prepare their witness statements.

    Although the defence counsel said Lawal could go on to testify to save time while EFCC updates its list of witnesses later, Justice Mohammed Idris said it would be better for the prosecution to comply with the law.

    He said: “Section 379 is mandatory. We’ll go with speed but in accordance with the law. Let’s do it within the ambit of the law. Let’s not overlook the issue and proceed.

    “The prosecution should ensure that a summary of the issues and list of witnesses are made available to the defence before trial commences.”

    Ladoja was first arraigned before Justice A.R. Mohammed in 2008, but he objected to the charge.

    He subsequently obtained a stay of proceedings after filing an interlocutory appeal, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

    The EFCC accused Ladoja and Akanbi of converting N1,932,940,032.48 belonging to Oyo to their personal use through the Guaranty Trust Bank account of a company, Heritage Apartments Limited despite knowing that it was proceed of crime.

    The prosecution said Ladoja removed £600,000 (about N240, 219,945) from the state coffers in 2007 and sent it to Bimpe Ladoja in London.

    Ladoja also allegedly bought an armoured Land Cruiser jeep with N42million for himself using public funds.

    EFCC said he converted N728, 600,000 and another N77,850,000 at different times in 2007, and allegedly transferred N77, 850,000 to Bistrum Investments, which he nominated to help him purchase a property named Quarter 361 in Ibadan, Oyo State capital.

    The alleged offence contravenes sections 17(a) and18 (1) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2004, punishable under sections 14(1), 16(a) (b) and 18(2).

    Ladoja and Akanbi pleaded not guilty.

    Justice Idris adjourned until March 1 for trial.

  • Frozen $15.5 m: Court adjourns Jonathan’s suit to Jan. 18, 2017

    Frozen $15.5 m: Court adjourns Jonathan’s suit to Jan. 18, 2017

    Justice Mohammed Idris of a Federal High Court Lagos, on Wednesday, further adjourned till Jan. 18, 2017, hearing in a suit by ex-first Lady, Patience Jonathan, seeking enforcement of her fundamental rights.

    Jonathan had instituted the fundamental rights suit against the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), claiming the sum of 200 million dollars as damages for inconveniences suffered.

    In her suit, she also joined Skye bank Plc, and a former aide to ex-president Goodluck Jonathan, Warampo Dudafa as respondents.

    Also joined in the suit are four companies namely: Pluto Property Ltd, Seagate Property Development and Investment Company Ltd, Transocean company Ltd and Globus Integrated Service Ltd.

    When the case was called on Wednesday, counsel to Jonathan, Mr Ifedayo Adedipe (SAN) informed the court of a motion seeking to regularise his processes before the court.

    Justice Idris granted him leave to amend his processes, while the court also granted leave to the EFCC to amend it’s counter affidavit.

    The court consequently, fixed Jan. 18, 2017 for the continuation of hearing.

    Meanwhile, a similar suit before another judge, Justice Babs Kuewumi has also been fixed for hearing on Dec. 14.

    It will be recalled that Dudafa was charged alongside the four companies before Justice Kuewumi, on 15 counts of money laundering.

    Representatives of the four companies which the EFCC claimed were used by Dudafa to launder the said sum of money, had all pleaded guilty to the offences.

    The said $15.5 million, is the same sum which the former first lady, claims belongs to her as sole signatory to the accounts of the companies.

    In her suit, Jonathan is urging the court to issue an order discharging the freezing order, and restraining the EFCC and its agent from further placing a freezing order on the said accounts.

  • Honeywell vs Ecobank: Judge refuses to disqualify self

    Honeywell vs Ecobank: Judge refuses to disqualify self

    …Won’t compel disclosure of story’s source

     

    Justice Mohammed Idris of the Federal High Court in Lagos Friday refused to disqualify himself from adjudicating a N5.5billion debt case between Honeywell Flour Mills Plc, its sister companies and Ecobank Nigeria Limited.

    Ecobank’ had written the Chief Judge, Justice Ibrahim Auta, asking that the case be re-assigned to another judge.

    The bank said it no longer had confidence in the judge to do justice.

    Praying the court to recuse himself from adjudicating the case, Ecobank’s lawyer Mr Kunle Ogunba (SAN) said his client had several reasons to believe that it would not get justice from the judge.

    “The court’s rules allow My Lord to transfer the case on his own. This is the first time we’re asking in this suit that the case be re-assigned,” Ogunba said.

    Ogunba said the application to transfer the case was not an attack on the judge’s integrity.

    “Since a party has shown that it does not harbour the confidence in your Lordship to handle the case dispassionately, your Lordship should wait on the CJ to respond or for My Lord to recuse himself so that parties can go before any other judge. This is our client’s grievance.

    “Their (plaintiffs’) conduct has been as if they own the court. It accords with the best judicial tenets for your Lordship to await the CJ’s decision or recuse himself,” Ogunba said.

    But Honeywell’s lawyer Bode Olanipekun argued that Ecobank’s application was a ploy to delay the case.

    “It’s an application to stymie, waylay and ambush proceedings. This type of application portends very grave danger to the judiciary,” he said.

    According to him, if Ecobank had any issues with the judge’s rulings, it ought to go on appeal.

    “This application is not based on any law. I urge your Lordship to dismiss the application,” Olanipekun added.

    Ruling, Justice idris refused to recuse himself from the case. He said he would stick to his judicial oath in determining the case.

    His words: “It is always tempting for a judge against whom criticisms are made to say he would prefer not to hear further proceedings in which the critic is involved.

    “But it is important for a judge to resist the temptation to recuse himself simply because it’ll be comfortable to do so. The danger is that we’ll soon reach a position in which litigants were able to select judges to hear their cases simply by criticising all the judges that they do not want to hear their cases, whether the criticism is justified or not.

    “These issues are either for the appellate court or appealable issues and the defendant can exercise the right of appeal if it so desires. The application for the judge to recuse himself from this matter is most frivolous and it is refused.

    “This court shall abide by the decision of the Honourable the Chief Judge whenever it is made. The application is refused and the matter shall proceed accordingly.”

    The judge earlier refused Olanipekun’s application to compel this reporter to step into th dock and disclose the source of his report on Ecobank’s letter to the CJ. The story, published in the Tuesday edition of this newspaper, was based on the letter.

    Olanipekun said: “We only got hint of that application by a publication in The Nation of November 15, 2016 in an article authored by one Joseph Jibueze. Coincidentally, he is in court. I take this issue very seriously.

    “I refer to the National Judicial Council (NJC) policy on complaints against judicial officers. Section 2.2 (4) to section 2.2 (9) bars any party from leaking any allegation of judicial misconduct against any judge in the press.

    “May I apply that Mr Jibueze comes into the dock to tell the court how he came about the story. Let him tell us the origin and how he came to know about it.”

    Ogunba, who spoke in the journalist’s defence, describing Olanipekun’s application as “bizarre”.

    He said: “This application is shocking. Mr Jibueze is not a party to this suit. On what basis will he enter the dock? Olanipekun has not cited any rule of procedure that allows that. Mr Jibueze did not report what was not in existence. I urge my Lord to discountenance my learned friend’s application.”

    In a short ruling, Justice Idris asked Mr Olanipekun to “drop” the application and to “leave Mr Jibueze out of it”.

    Justice Idris said: “I urge counsel to drop it. Let’s leave Mr Jibueze out of it. Let’s leave Mr Jibueze alone. Let’s leave Mr Jibueze and go to the substance. We’ll leave the press out of it. They’re doing their work.”

    The judge said his attention was also drawn to the story, but that he was not surprised by Ecobank’s letter to the CJ.

     

    He said: “I was asked: ‘have you read the report?’ I said: ‘What matter?’ They said: ‘Ecobank.’ I said I expected that they would write the DSS (Department of State Services). I expected that they would write the EFCC (Economic and Financial Crimes Commission).

    “I expected that they would write the ICPC (Independent Practices and other related offences Commission). I expected that there would be a sting operation in my house on Monday the 14th of November. I expected and I was waiting. And I am waiting.

     

    “I said it on the last date and I’m saying it today: Nobody, no matter who you are can threaten me. Nobody, no matter who you are can intimidate me. Idris can never be intimidated. Never! This is a court a court of law. You don’t do politics in Justice Idris’ court.

     

    “No matter how rich you are, you can’t influence Justice Idris – no matter how powerful you are. Keep your money in your pockets. Don’t come here with your money, I’ll not accept it. Keep your influence where they are, you cannot influence Justice Idris whoever you are. I’m saying it openly and I am declaring it.

     

    “Let’s go to the issues. I’m prepared. Justice idris is prepared. Ogunba SAN knows me very well in practice. So let’s leave the issue of Jibueze. Let’s go to the substance. We’ll leave the pressmen out of it. We do law in this court. Let’s talk law.”

     

    The judge adjourned until December 1 for hearing.

  • Alleged N22.8b fraud: Ex-Air Force chief, Amosun begins plea bargain

    Alleged N22.8b fraud: Ex-Air Force chief, Amosun begins plea bargain

    …EFCC opens case September 12

    A former Chief of Air Staff,  Air Marshall Adesola Amosun  (Retd) and 10 others facing a N22.8b fraud trial are in talks with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to enter plea bargain with the Federal Government.

    The EFCC tendered a draft copy of the terms of the potential plea bargain before Justice Mohammed Idris of the Federal High Court, Lagos on Friday.

    Amosun is standing trial alongside Air Vice Marshal Jacob Adigun and Air Commodore Gbadebo Olugbenga, all of the Nigerian Air Force (NAF), and eight private firms.

    The firms include Delfina Oil and Gas Limited, Mcallan Oil and Gas Limited, Hebron Housing and Properties Company Limited and Trapezites BDC Fonds and Pricey Limited.

    Others are Deegee Oil and Gas Limited, Timsegg Investment Limited and Solomon Health Care Limited.

    The defendants were arraigned by the anti-graft agency on June 29, on a 26-count charge of conspiracy, stealing, money laundering, concealing of proceeds of crime and conversion of funds belonging to the Air Force to their personal use.

    They were alleged to have committed the offences between March 5, 2014, and May 4, 2015.

    According to the Commission, the offences contravene Sections 18(a) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) (Amendment) Act, 2012, and are punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.

    But they entered a plea of innocence following which Amosun, Adigun and Olugbenga were granted bail of N500m each with two sureties in the like sum.

    Justice Idris also ordered them to deposit their passports in the custody of the court pending trial.

    At the resumed hearing of the matter on Friday, EFCC’s  prosecutor, Rotimi Oyedepo, informed the court that the defendants had began plea bargain negotiations with the government.

    He tendered a draft copy of the terms of the plea bargain to the court, and indicated that the defendants were already in possession of their copies of the terms.

    Oyedepo urged the court to allow the Commission to open the defendants’ trial.

    But defence counsel, comprising Mr. Norrison Quakers (SAN), Mr. Kemi Balogun (SAN), Chief Bolaji Ayorinde (SAN), Mr. Rotimi O. (SAN) and Mr. A. Etuokwu, opposed the commencement of trial.

    They informed the court that the business of the day was for report of compliance with the order of the court regarding the verification of the defendants’ bail conditions.

    The EFCC, they argued, failed to inform the court that it had yet to obey the order

    Amosu’s lawyer, Chief Ayorinde said: “The prosecution left out a fundamental issue, which is the court admitting bail to the accused. As at now, the accused are still in the custody of the Commission or prisons’ custody. We have satisfied all the conditions.”

    In his argument, Quakers said the prosecution was not in a position to tell the court that it was ready for trial.

    “We are in court to inform it as to the state of affairs as par the bail. We are surprised that the prosecution failed to tell the court the steps taken on the bail. Let the prosecution tell the court the report of their finding,” he said.

    Although Quakers admitted that the defendants’ lawyers met with the EFCC for the plea bargain, he said since the first meeting, the Commission failed to communicate with them, and only served them the draft of the agreement in court yesterday.

    He added that though the defendants initiated the idea of a plea bargain, they needed to be out of the EFCC custody before they would be able to negotiate properly with the prosecution.

    “When a man is in a custodian environment, anything you want him to say, he would say; anything you want him to do, he would do. We should not be stampeded or boxed into a corner,” Quakers said.

    He argued further that defendants were entitled under Section 36(6) (b) of the 1999 Constitution to be given adequate time and facility to prepare their defence.

    Olugbenga’s lawyer, Mr. Etuokwu, while aligning himself with the submissions of the two senior lawyers, urged the court to discountenance the prosecution’s applications to commence the trial today.

    But, opposing them, Oyedepo referred the court to its former ruling which stated that the matter was slated for trial.

    “The court will also see that we did not oppose the bail applications. We didn’t induce them to approach us for plea bargain.

    “On the issue of verification, we are in the process of complying with the court order. The accused persons took their pleas and on the second day, the Court Registrars forwarded some documents to the Commission for authentication, and we took our time during the holidays to verify these documents.

    “I urge the court to allow us, if they said they no longer believe in the plea bargain, we are ready for trial”.

    After back and forth arguments by the parties, Justice Idris, in a bench ruling, upheld the defendants’ request and ordered the EFCC to conclude the verification of the defendants’ bail conditions on or before Monday, July 11.

    The court also noted that the defendants had shown a “clear, positive and strong intention” to settle with the government.

    The judge adjourned till September 12 and 13, 2016 for trial.

    According to the charge, the accused persons are alleged to have converted of N21, 467, 634, 707.43 billion, property of the NAF, which sum was derived from stealing, to their personal use.

    They were also accused of indirectly converting N5, 291, 306, 950.28 Billion, N3.6bn property of the (NAF).

    In another instance, the EFCC also alleged that Amosun and the others stole N323, 319, 283.81 from the accounts of the NAF to purchase for themselves a property situated at No.1, River Street, Wuse II Abuja.

    Amosu, Adgun and Olugbenga, were also alleged to have between July 17, and September 16, 2014, “used the British Pounds Sterling equivalent of sum of N663, 443,291 million, removed from the accounts of the Nigerian Air Force to purchase for yourselves two properties situated at 50-52 Tenterden Grove, London (NW41TH) and 93B Shirehall Park, London NW4 2QU, United Kingdom.”

    Other counts include purchasing a property situated at 1, River Street, Wuse II Abuja with N202, 920, 200 million, belonging to the NAF and jointly removing N428, 139, 539 million, from the NAF accounts “to renovate and purchase medical equipment for their hospital, Solomon HealthCare Limited, locatesd at 24, Adeniyi Jones Street, Ikeja Lagos.”