Tag: Justice Mohammed Yunusa]

  • Justice Yunusa must stand trial for corruption – Court

    A Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja on Monday ordered Justice Mohammed Yunusa of the Federal High Court to face trial for alleged corruption.

    Justice Sherifat Solebo, in her ruling insisted that the embattled judge must stand trial for corruption charges preferred against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

    Justice Yunusa’s counsel, Chief Robert Clarke (SAN), had on March 9, in a preliminary objection claimed that the judge had been absolved of the corruption charges by the National Judicial Council (NJC).

    Citing the case of Federal Republic of Nigeria Vs Nganjiwa, Clarke had said for Yunusa’s dismissal to be valid, President Muhammadu Buhari had to give a recommendation for his suspension.

    But Justice Solebo disagreed with the submission of the counsel and ordered the judge to defend the charges against him.

    The judge dismissed the preliminary objection raised by the defence counsel against the trial of Justice Yunusa.

    She insisted that the court has jurisdiction to hear the charges filed against the judge by the EFCC.

     

  • The Nation vs Senate: CJ directs judge to deliver verdict

    Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Ibrahim Auta, has issued a fiat directing Justice Mohammed Yunusa to deliver judgment in The Nation’s suit against the Senate.

    Justice Yunusa had adjourned the verdict before he was transferred to Enugu Division.

    Vintage Press Limited (publisher of The Nation), Editor Gbenga Omotoso and a correspondent, Imam Bello are the applicants.

    Through their lawyer Mr Wahab Shittu, they sued the Senate and National Assembly.

    A new judge, Justice Jude Dagat, took over the case, but the plaintiffs applied to the CJ for a fiat to enable Justice Yunusa return to Lagos to deliver the judgment rather than the case starting de novo (afresh).

    The applicants are praying for an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Senate from summoning them or compelling their appearance over a story.

    The Senate, last August 4, invited Omotoso and Bello over the story: Motion: 22 APC Northern senators ‘working against Buhari’, which was published last July 30.‎

    The Senate wrote again last August 11 threatening to invoke Section 89 (1) (D) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) to compel the applicants to appear.

    But Justice Yunusa made an interim order of injunction restraining the respondents from issuing a warrant to compel the applicants’ attendance before a Senate committee set up to investigate the publication.

    ‎He barred the respondents, their members, committees or agents from summoning the applicants or their agents before any Senate committee.

    In the fiat issued on February 10 and signed by the CJ, he directed Justice Yunusa to return to Lagos to deliver the judgment.

    It reads: “In exercise of powers conferred on me by virtue of Section 19 (3) of the Federal High Court Act 1973 and all other powers enabling me in that regard, I, Ibrahim Ndahi Auta (OFR), Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, do hereby order that the judgments in the civil suits listed in the shedule of this order which were pending before Hon. Justice M. N. Yunusa formerly sitting in the Lagos Judicial Division, be delivered by Hon. Justice M. N. Yunusa sitting in the Lagos Judicial Division.”

    The four cases listed in the schedule are Alhaji Jibrin Okelewu vs IGP, Vintage Press Limited vs National Assembly, Songhai Energy vs Maersk and Valueline Securities vs Bishop David Oyedepo.

    In an application filed last December 1, the Senate prayed the court not to deliver the judgment but to extend the time within which it “may” file and serve its counter-affidavit.

    The Senate sought an order striking out the suit for want of jurisdiction and prayed the court to set aside the proceedings, its orders and decisions.

    In a supporting affidavit, Clerk of the Senate’s Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions Committee, Freedom Osolo, said the National Assembly’s inability to respond to the suit on time “is not deliberate but is due to the non-service of the aforesaid process of this court on the second respondent”.

    In its preliminary objection, the National Assembly sought an order striking out the suit for being “premature, pre-emptive and speculative”.

    It argued that the applicants were attempting to prevent the lawmakers from carrying out their constitutional duties by filing the suit.

    But, the applicants said the Senate’s motion was an abuse of court process because it had ample opportunity to defend the suit.

    Shittu averred that the court adjourned the case severally to enable the respondents file their defence, but they “deliberately failed and neglected” to do so.

    Besides, the applicants’ lawyer said the respondents were served with the processes, which were acknowledged with an official stamp, according to affidavits deposed to by the court’s sheriff.

    According to the proofs of service exhibited before the court, the suit was received by the Office of the President of the Senate last September 1.

    The National Assembly was earlier served last August 27 through the Office of the Deputy Clerk to the National Assembly.

    The applicants are claiming that the National Assembly was attempting to gag the press through intimidation and by demanding that they disclose the story’s source.

    But, in its counter-affidavit, the Senate said the letters to Omotoso and Bello were “mere invitation”.

    It said the National Assembly “is not a law enforcement agency that can impede or prohibit the rights of the applicants”.

    The case has been adjourned till May 5.

  • EFCC: Tarfa bribed judge with N225, 000

    EFCC: Tarfa bribed judge with N225, 000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The case comes up today for hearing.

  • Court gives Senate 30 days to respond to The Nation’s suit

    The Federal High Court in Lagos has directed the Senate and the National Assembly to respond to a suit filed by The Nation’s Editor Gbenga Omotoso and a correspondent Imam Bello within 30 days.

    Justice Mohammed Yunusa said the respondents should be given time to “enter appearance” before the plaintiffs’ motion for interlocutory injunction is determined.

    He relied on Section 99 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act which says: “The period within which a defendant is required to answer before the court to the writ of summons shall be not less than 30 days after service of the writ has been effected.”

    The plaintiffs’ counsel, Mr. Wahab Shittu, informed the court that the respondents have been served with the order of injunction.

    The order restrained the Senate from compelling the plaintiffs to appear before its Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions over a story.

    According to the proof of service, the processes were received by the Senate President’s Office on September 1.

    The first respondent, National Assembly, was earlier served on August 27 through its Office of the Deputy Clerk.

    The bailiff, Mr. Lambo Moshood, in an affidavit of service, stated that the Senate was served at about 12.01pm on September 1, and that it acknowledged receipt via an official stamp.

    Justice Yunusa made the order following a motion ex-parte moved by Shittu.

    The order is to subsist pending the hearing and determination of the plaintiffs’ motion ‎for interlocutory injunction.

    Should the motion for interlocutory injunction be granted, it will subsist pending hearing of the main suit, which seeks, among others, an order of perpetual injunction against the respondents.

    Vintage Press Limited (publisher of The Nation), Omotoso and Bello are the applicants.

    The Senate had, in an August 4 letter, invited Omotoso and Bello to appear before it unfailingly over the story: Motion: 22 APC Northern senators ‘working against Buhari’ published on July 30.

    The Senate wrote again on August 11, threatening to invoke Section 89 (1) (D) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) to compel the applicants’ appearance.

  • Unrepentant outlawry

    Unrepentant outlawry

    •As DSS raids APC data centre again

    The second raid of the data centre of the All Progressives Congress (APC), by the Directorate of State Security (DSS), despite a restraining order by Justice Mohammed Yunusa, of the Federal High Court, Lagos, is a further confirmation of that security agency’s descent into anarchy.

    While every law abiding citizen of our country should worry about the first raid, made in the absence of any justification by the agency, the second, in clear disregard of a subsisting order of court, is a manifest show of contempt against the rule of law.

    We recall that Justice Yunusa had on November 26, made an order restraining the DSS from further sealing off the data centre of the APC, or indeed taking any further steps in connection with the property.

    Yet, last week, despite that subsisting order, the DSS again allegedly raided the centre with over 40 armed officials; and carted away over 30 bags filled with APC’s membership registration forms.

    The claim that the APC was using the center to clone the Permanent Voters Card has not been substantiated by the DSS before the court; yet the agency recklessly disobeyed the order made by the court.

    We urge President Goodluck Jonathan, as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and the National Assembly leadership, to rise up to their constitutional responsibility to protect the constitution.

    We note that in direspecting the courts, the DSS is making a mockery of our constitutional government. The DSS must also be made to realise that their very existence is predicated on the rule of law; otherwise, they would be no better than the other armed gangs, raiding our country.

    On this matter, we stand in solidarity with the court, and urge all law courts to be bold and bear allegience only to the consitution, despite the acts of intimidation and impunity by many of the law enforcement agencies.

    Justice Yunusa must also hold the agency to account and commit to jail, if need be, those who held his court in contempt. The learned Justice and indeed all courts need the solidarity of the entire legal community, and indeed all Nigerians, to stem a clear and manifest danger constituted by some security agencies to our polity. To ignore such conducts as exhibited by the DSS is to invite a resort to self help, which is antithetical to democracy.

    The leadership of the DSS must also rein in their goons who are bringing the agency to disrepute, unless they sanctioned the illegal raids. In making their choice whether to serve the country or the interests of the temporal office holders, the DSS must remember that if by their partisan conducts, the country is set ablaze, there would be no agency to work for.

    To help them to make an informed choice, we remind the agency that the laws of the land envision that security agencies should act as non-partisan institutions of state, in order to help stabilize the divergent and contending political interests, in our young democracy.

    President Jonathan, as head of the executive arm of government, to which the DSS belongs, should note that the several acts of lawlessness by the security agencies, under his command, cast his government as an outlaw. That is a great disservice to our country.

    As we have preached many times, the legitimacy of a democratic government is predicated on the rule of law, and any recourse to arbitrariness, as we witnessed with respect to the conduct of the DSS in raiding the data center of the APC, despite an order of a law court, is an invitation to anarchy.

  • Court orders release of APC’s data centre’s workers

    Court orders release of APC’s data centre’s workers

    •Judge slams DSS for detaining without valid warrant 

    A Federal High Court in Lagos has ordered the release of five detained workers of All Progressives Congress’ (APC’s) data centre.

    Justice Mohammed Yunusa restrained yesterday the Department of State Security Services (DSS) from further arresting Chinedu Atuche, Fayemi Olaposi, Chika Augustine Onochukwu, Ebun Ilori and Esther Enemuwe, who have been  held since the DSS raided the centre on November 22.

    The court ordered the DSS to open the data office/warehouse at 10, Bola Ajibola Street, off Allen Avenue, Ikeja, Lagos.

    But APC’s lawyer, Prof. Yemi Osinbajo (SAN), said the DSS was yet to obey the order.

    The agency’s counsel, Clifford Osagie, said it was not true that the place was still under DSS seal.

    Justice Yunusa held that the defendants had been detained beyond the two days allowed in law.

    He said the DSS did so without a valid warrant. Besides, he added that the matter before him was a fundamental rights enforcement suit and not a criminal case.

    He, therefore, held that the applicants could not be arrested and detained while the DSS conducted its investigations.

    The judge faulted the detention warrant acted upon by the DSS, saying it was obtained outside jurisdiction and therefore it was illegal.

    “No enforcement agency has the power to arrest without a warrant,” he said, adding that Section 35 of the 1999 Constitution provides that any person arrested on the suspicion of any crime must be brought to court within a reasonable time.

    He said even if the remand order was genuine, it could not be the basis for detaining the applicants endlessly.

    “A remand order is not issued indefinitely,” he said, adding that the DSS should have applied to a High Court within jurisdiction for a “review” of the remand order.

    “There is no indication that the respondents have filed an application seeking a review of the remand order,” Justice Yunusa held.

    He said the remand order exhibited by DSS “has exceeded the reasonable time in the constitution,” and that “every person has a right to his or her liberty.”

    The judge said the law did not allow arresting and keeping a person in detention while an investigation was ongoing.

    “The arrest and detention of a person with a view to getting information is a violation of Section 35 of the Constitution, which provides that such a person shall be brought promptly before a court,” he held.

    To him, the applicants were not brought to court within a reasonable time and therefore  they deserved to enjoy their freedom.

    The judge, therefore, ordered the APC workers’  release from detention. But he directed them not to travel out of the country without the court’s permission.

    Justice Yunusa retrained the DSS and the police from further arresting and detaining the applicants until their motion on notice was heard and determined.

    “The point should be clear that there is no criminal matter before me,” the judge added after the bench ruling.

    Before the ruling, Osinbajo said the DSS did not only detain the workers, it denied them access to their relatives, even when there was no criminal charge against them.

    He said even if there was a charge, it was still no basis to justify the applicants’ detention for more than a week.

    “The continued violation of their rights should not be allowed to continue,” Osinbajo prayed.

    But Osagie asked the court not to release the workers, saying that freeing them could jeopardise DSS investigation into the alleged crime being committed by APC in the data centre.

    “We acknowledge their right to personal liberty. But the right is not absolute,” he said, adding that rights can be curtailed where there is strong suspicion of a crime being committed.

    Besides, he said the DSS obtained a warrant, which empowered them to detain the applicants based on allegations of “forgery and electoral offences” against them.

    “The applicants are in proper custody of the second respondent (DSS),” he said, adding that the remand order allows them to keep the workers “pending the conclusion of the criminal investigation.”

    “This court is enjoined to enable the second defendant perform its duties,” Osagie said, while denying that the applicants were barred from seeing their relatives.

    Replying on points of law, Osinbajo said the remand order DSS claimed it obtained was issued by an unknown court in Kaduna State.

    “It does not say where this magistrate court is. And such an order must be made by a court that has jurisdiction. You cannot have remand order from a court outside jurisdiction.

    “Besides, the Supreme Court has held that you cannot detain a Nigerian citizen pending investigation. It’s unlawful to arrest first and then carry out investigation,” Osinbajo argued.

    The former Lagos attorney-general also pointed out that the remand order did not bear the name of the court which gave it, and that it bore DSS’ stamp dated November 24.

    “It means the applicants were in illegal detention on November 22 and 23,” he said.

    After ordering their release, Justice Yunusa said he did not want to believe that APC’s data centre was still shut.

    Osinbajo insisted that Osagie should say before the judge that the place had been opened. Osagie said the place was not still sealed as claimed by Osinbajo.

    The workers were produced in court yesterday in line with the judge’s order made last Wednesday.

    After they were released, the joyous workers hugged themselves in tears before being taken away.

    Justice Yunusa adjourned till January 19, for hearing of their motion on notice.