The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Mohammed Dasuki

  • Court orders DSS to produce Dasuki

    A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in Maitama has ordered the issuance of a production warrant on the Department of State Services (DSS) to compel it to produce detained former National Security Adviser (NSA), Mohammed Dasuki on the next date.

    Justice Hussein Baba-Yusuf gave the order in a ruling on Tuesday at the resumed hearing in the trial of Dasuki and some others.

    Justice Baba-Yusuf said: “The information before the court is that the 1st defendant is in the custody of the DSS and the prosecution is to liaise with the DSS to produce the 1st defendant in court and in any day the cases comes up.

    “But it appears that the prosecution has failed to do and did not provide any explanation for failing to do so.

    “Hence, I will issue a production warrant and adjourn the case till a further date to ensure the presence of the first defendant in court,” the judge said and scheduled May 24 as the next hearing date.

    Dasuki is being tried with Aminu Baba-Kusa and his (Baba-Kusa’s) two firms – Acacia Holdings Ltd and Reliance Referral Hospital Limited – on a 32-count charge, in which they are accused of diverting N32bn meant for procurement of firearms and ammunition to combat insurgents.

    Read Also: Dasuki stalls trial in absentia

    At the commencement of proceedings on Tuesday,the judge observed that Dasuki, listed as the first defendant, was absent.

    Lawyers to the defendants  – Victor Okwudiri (for Dasuki), Solomon Umoh (SAN), R.A Rilwan and A.O Ayodele – blamed Dasuki’s absence on the prosecution.

    They expressed surprise that the prosecution lawyer, representing the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Oluwaleke Atolagbe could not explain the absence of the first defendant, who they noted, was in the custody of the state.

    In his response, Atolagbe, a private lawyer, engaged by the EFCC, argued that his client was without for Dasuki’s absence.

    He said, “All the defendants are saying that the 1st defendant (Dasuki) is in the custody of the state, but this honourable court has held that he is in the custody of the DSS and not the EFCC that is prosecuting this case, a position both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court have upheld.

    “The EFCC cannot produce the 1st defendant because he is not in their custody.

    “I would urge my lord to issue a production warrant for the the production of the 1st defendant as issued in the sister case,” Atolagbe said.

    He urged the court to hold that, should the DSS be unable to produce Dasuki on the next date, the court should  invoke the provisions of Section 352(4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) to proceed with the trial in the first defendant’s absence.

    Atolagbe told court that another court has taken such step in another case in which the DSS was already prosecuting Dasuki.

    In that case, the DSS, through the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation, is prosecuting Dasuki on money laundering and illegal possession of firearms charges before Justice Ahmed Mohammed of the Federal High Court in Abuja.

  • Dasuki asks court to excuse him from prosecution

    Former National Security Adviser (NSA), Mohammed Dasuki has asked a Federal High Court to stop his prosecution on the grounds that the Federal Government has allegedly failed to obey orders made for his release on bail.

    Dasuki’s request is contained in his personal letter, dated November 12, 2018 which he addressed to the Registrar of Court 5.

    He is standing trial before the court on charges of money laundering and illegal arms possession. The charges were brought against him by the office of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF).

    The letter, titled: “Re: Unabated persecution of Col. Mohammed Sambo Dasuki (rtd) by the Federal Government of Nigeria,” was signed by the ex-NSA.

    Dasuki, in the letter gave a brief profile of himself and detailed what he described as constituting his persecution by the Federal Government and its agency, the Department of State Services (DSS).

    He referred to five different orders for his release made, both by Nigerian courts and the Community Court of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), which he said the Nigerian government has failed to obey.

    Dasuki said: “The restive to continue detaining me, against the several orders of court and in brazen violation of the Constitution, is wrongful and arbitrary. It has inflicted physical, emotional and psychological torture on my family and me.

    “The decision of the Federal Government of Nigeria is not only high-handed, it is also arbitrary and in violation of both domestic and international laws on human rights.

    “At this juncture, it will seem that the Nigerian Government is not inclined to yield or obey the orders of any court of law, whether domestic or international.

    “Ironically, the Federal Government still wants to ride on judicial wings to prosecute me. when it does not comply with the orders that proceed from the court, especially in relations to me.

    “At this point, I strongly believe that there must be an end to this hypocrisy and lopsided / partisan rule of law.

    “Since the Federal Government has resolved not to comply with judicial orders directing my release, it is better for the court to also absolve me of the need to submit myself for further prosecution.

    “Justice should be evenly dispensed, as opposed to same, being, in favour of the Federal Government of Nigeria.”

    When the case came up on Tuesday before Justice Ahmed Mohammed, Dasuki was absent in court.

    His lawyer, Victor Okwudiri drew the court’s attention to the letter by his client.

    Okwudiri said: “We were not aware of the letter until this morning when we got to court.

    “But what I could get from the letter when I rushed through it this morning, is that he is complaining about his plight in the custody of the DSS,” Okwudiri said.

    Responding, prosecuting lawyer, Dipo Okpeseyi (SAN) said Dasuki informed DSS operatives, who are keeping him that he would not come to court since he had sent a letter to the court.

    Okpeseyi added that although Dasuki could be compelled to attend court, the DSS operatives chose not to take such action to accord him some respect due to his status as a former NSA.

    The prosecuting lawyer argued that Dasuki’s decision not to attend court, but instead, chose to send a letter to the court, amounted to an affront to the court.

    He noted that Dasuki also failed to attend court on January 17 and April 10 this year.

    Relying on the provision of Section 352(4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, Okpeseyi urged the court to proceed with trial in Dasuki’s absence by directing the prosecution to call its witness, an application, Okwudiri objected to.

    Ruling, Justice Mohammed noted that he had, in a ruling on April 10 this year, directed the prosecution to file an affidavit stating the facts whenever the defendant, on his own decided not to appear in court.

    The judge said the affidavit must be filed convince him that the defendant willfully stayed away from court.

    Justice Mohammed noted that since the prosecution has failed to file an affidavit to also reflect the defendant’s absence on Tuesday, he would adjourn to a later date for the prosecution to comply.

    He adjourned to November 19.

  • Court refuses to stop Dasuki’s trial 

    Court refuses to stop Dasuki’s trial 

    A Federal High Court in Abuja Wednesday rejected the request by former National Security Adviser (NSA), Mohammed Dasuki for an indefinite adjournment in his trial for alleged illegal possession of firearms and money laundering.

    Dasuki had filed a motion, seeking an indefinite adjournment in his trial pending the determination of an appeal he filed before the Court of Appeal in Abuja, which he said was a referral of a question of law to the appellate for determination.

    Justice Ahmed Mohammed, in a ruling yesterday, said Dasuki’s motion was misconceived and lacked merit because it was hinged on a non-existing question of law purportedly referred to the appellate court.

    Justice Mohammed said the procedure for referring a constitutional question to the Court of Appeal, under section 295(2) of the Constitution, required that such referral should be made by the trial court, but not by a party in the trial filing an appeal.

    The judge said: “In the procedure stated in section 295(2) of the Constitution, it is the trial court, and in this case, this court that will form the opinion that a question as to the interpretation or the application of the Constitution has arisen in the proceedings before it.

    “After forming such opinion it is the court that will also refer the question that has arisen to the Court of Appeal. There is nothing in section 295(2) of the Constitution conferring those functions on any of the parties in the proceedings.

    “The only role a party can play is to make a request to the trial court for the reference of any such questions, on the interpretation or application of the Constitution, to the Court of Appeal

    “In this case, I cannot remember when the court had come to the conclusion or formed any opinion that a question as to the interpretation or application of the Constitution had arisen in these proceedings let alone making any reference of such questions to the Court of Appeal for consideration.

    “I can also not remember when any of the parties in this case had made a request for the reference of any question as to the interpretation of the Constitution to the Court of Appeal to warrant any such reference in accordance with the provisions of section 295(2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

    “In all sincerity, the procedure adopted by the defendant to challenge the ruling of the court delivered on June 15, 2017 cannot be described as reference of a question as to the interpretation of the Constitution contemplated in section 305(1)(a) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015.”

    “What the defendant has done, as stated earlier, is a challenge of the ruling delivered on June 15, 2017, by way of an appeal.

    “It is therefore my humble view that it is only after the provision of section 305(1)(a) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act  has been strictly adhered to regarding reference to the Court of Appeal of any question as to the interpretation of the Constitution that the defendant can avail himself of the right to bring an application for adjournment as provided in the section.

    “By the wording of Section 306 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), the Act has taken away the power of the court to even entertain an application to stay proceedings in a criminal matter before it

    “This, therefore means that any relief, however couched in an application that has the effect of staying proceedings in a criminal matter before a court will not be entertained,” Justice Mohammed said.

    He adjourned further proceedings in the case to January 17 next year.

    Dasuki’s lawyer, Ahmed Raji (SAN) had, while arguing the motion on October 17 this year, urged the court to adjourn the trial indefinitely pending the determination of his client’s motion for stay of proceedings filed before the Court of Appeal along with an appeal against the June 15 ruling of the court.

    Raji drew a distinction between his client’s motion filed under Section 305 of ACJA and the one prohibited under Section 306 of the Act.

    He said his client’s motion did not seek stay of proceedings prohibited under Section 306 of ACJA, but was brought under Section 305 of ACJA, which allows the court to adjourn a trial after a constitutional question, arising from the trial, has been referred to a higher court for determination.

    Raji argued that his client’s appeal filed against the ruling delivered by Justice Mohammed on June 15, 2017, permitting prosecution’s witnesses to testify behind screen, was a form of reference of a constitutional question to the Court of Appeal.

    He said since Dasuki has filed a motion before the appellate court for the stay of proceedings in the trial, and the appeal entered, it was the tradition that the lower court awaits the decision of the higher court.

    Lawyer to the prosecution, Dipo Okpeseyi (SAN) said the motion amounted to an abuse of court process

    Okpeseyi argued that the motion was founded on a non-existing premise because no constitutional question had been referred by the court to the Court of Appeal, adding that what Dasuki merely filed was a notice of appeal against the ruling of the court.

    He said the appeal filed by Dasuki did not qualify as a referral which was the basis for the application.

    Okpeseyi contended that the motion was seeking an order of stay of proceedings, although Raji attempted to cover it up by using flowery words.

    He noted that the Supreme Court had ruled that an order of stay of proceedings in a criminal matter was ungrantable.

    Justice Mohammed’s ruling yesterday upheld Okpeseyi’s argument.

     

  • Dokpesi bought household items with funds from Dasuki – witnesses

    Dokpesi bought household items with funds from Dasuki – witnesses

    The trial of a chieftain of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Raymond Dokpesi resumed Thursday with two prosecution witnesses telling a Federal High Court in Abuja that Dokpesi bought household items with funds allegedly paid to him by former National Security Adviser (NSA), Mohammed Dasuki.

    The witnesses – Peter Imoekor and Fabian Ozoemina – informed the court that they supplied generators, a transformer and security doors valued at millions of naira, to Dokpesi’s houses in Lagos and Agenebode, Edo State, and his offices at different times after N2.1bn was allegedly paid to him by the Office of the National Security Adviser between January and March 2015.

    Dokpesi and his firm, Daar Investment and Holding Limited are standing trial on a six-count charge in relation to the N2.1bn they allegedly received unlawfully from the Office of the National Security Adviser between January and March 2015.

    They are accused of engaging in money laundering and procurement.

    Dokpesi and Daar Investments were said to have received the sum of N2.12bn from ONSA then headed by Col. Sambo Dasuki (retd.), as payment for a “purported contract on presidential media initiative”.

    The two witnesses, who testified as the prosecution’s 7th and 8th witnesses, were led in evidence by prosecuting lawyer, Oluwaleke Atolagbe.

    Imoekor, who is the Administrative Manager of Mikano International Ltd, Abuja branch, was the first to mount the witness box. He said that he was invited by the EFCC in February 2016 “to clarify” some transactions which Mikano had with Dokpesi and Daar Communications Plc.

    He explained how between February and August 2015 Mikano supplied four units of 140KVA, two units of 200KVA and a 500KVA electric transformer to Dokpesi’s house in Agenebode (Dokpesi’s hometown) and Daar’s offices in Sokoto and Gusau, Zamfara State.

    He said “The transaction was in respect of four units of 140KVA Basic (open type). Each costs N3.5m and they all totalled N14m

    “Daar made payment for all. The payment was made in two tranches of N7m each through First Bank drafts.

    “On March 19, 2015, they came to exchange three of the ‘Basic’ generators with soundproof type and paid the difference of N6, 350,000 through UBA Plc.

    “Then on March 30, 2015, delivery was made. We delivered them to Sokoto and Gusau, capital of Zamfara State.

    “In the same March, they made a request for the purchase of two units of 200KVA basic generator and payment of N11,657,240 was made through transfer and delivery was made to his (Dokpesi’s) house in Otuake  Quarters, Agenebode in Edo State.

    “In August 2015 payment for 500KVA electric transformer was made. The amount paid was in cash. It was N3,073,200. This time the receipt was issued in his name, that is, High Chief Raymond Dokpesi’s name.

    “Then a memo was issued to the head office of Mikano International Limited for delivery in Agenebode Edo State. It was subsequently delivered,” the witness said.

    He confirmed that the instructions for the transactions were from Dokpesi and that they were mostly carried out by the officials of Daar Communications.

    While being cross-examination by Dokpesi’s lawyer, Kanu Agabi (SAN), Imoekor said did not know the sources of the money paid by Dokpesi and his company for the supply of the products.

    He also said he did not know about the income and expenditure of Daar and that there is nothing about the transactions which he considered abnormal until he was invited by the EFCC.

    Ozoemina said the EFCC invited him sometimes in January 2016 and asked him what the money paid to my company was for and he said it was for a security door.

    The witness was later handed a document – a bank statement – and was asked to read from it.

    He said, “The narration reads: inward clearing cheque in favour of Gilgal Concept Ltd, on January 27, 2015 – N5m. Inward clearing cheque in favour of Gilgal Concept Ltd on the same day, January 27, 2015 – N1,066,558.”

    Ozoemina confirmed that the sums of money were paid into the account of Gilgal, his company.

    He said the total sum of N6,066,558 was for the installation of security doors at Dokpesi’s house in Agenebode.

    The witness further said “We got a total of N6,066,558 for the supply and installation of steel security doors. We installed the security doors. They were installed at chairman’s project at Agenebode. It was installed towards the end of 2014 and early 2015.”

    He confirmed that Dokpesi, whom he had known for close to 20 years gave the instructions for the transactions.

    While being cross-examined by Agabi, he denied knowing the sources of the money paid by Dokpesi.

    On whether he would describe Dokpesi, with whom he said he had related for the past 20 years as a good man, Ozoemina said the 1st defendant is.

    The trial judge, Justice John Tsoho subsequently adjourned further proceedings to November 17.