The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Ozekhome

  • Agbakoba, Falana, Ozekhome condemn freezing of CJN’s accounts

    Former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) President Dr. Olisa Agbakoba (SAN) and activist-lawyers Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN) and Femi Falana (SAN) yesterday urged the Federal Government to withdraw the order freezing the bank accounts of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Justice  Walter Onnonghen.

    They described the directive issued by the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) to the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU) to freeze the accounts as illegal and sub judice.

    Activist-lawyer Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa argued that the Executive Order 6 relied on by the AGF was inapplicable in Onnoghen’s case.

    To Agbakoba, the AGF does not have the authority to issue such directives to NFIU.

    He said: “To repeat, the AGF has no authority to issue a directive to NFIU to freeze the CJN’s bank accounts as the matter is already pending before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) and is therefore sub judice.

    “The proper forum to issue the order at all would be the CCT itself and not the AGF.”

    Falana, in a statement, said since a charge was pending before the CCT, neither the prosecutor nor the defence counsel was permitted by law to resort to self-help under the pretext of preserving the “res” or the subject matter of the criminal proceedings.

    Though the Presidential Executive Order No 6 of 2018 has been validated by the Federal High Court, Falana argued that it did not authorise the freezing of the bank accounts or assets of any defendant charged with economic or financial crime or the contravention of the code of conduct for public officers.

    The SAN said: “It is trite law that once a charge has been instituted in a criminal court or at the CCT, the freezing of the bank accounts or seizure of the assets of the defendant has to be anchored on the valid order of the trial court based on the application of the prosecution. This procedure accords with the rule of law.

    “For the umpteenth time, the Buhari administration ought to be reminded that even under a fascist military junta, Andrew Otutu Obaseki J.S.C. of blessed memory spoke for the Supreme Court when he said inter alia: ‘In the area where the rule of law operates, the rule of self-help by force is abandoned. Nigeria being  one of the  countries in the world, even in the third world which proclaim loudly to follow the rule of law, there is no room for the rule of self-help by force to operate.

    “‘Once a dispute has arisen between a person and the government or authority and the dispute has been brought before the court, thereby invoking the judicial powers of the State, it is the duty of the government to allow the legal and judicial process to run its full course.’”

    The activist-lawyer said he was compelled to call on the Federal Government to withdraw the charge as it was inexorably designed to end in a prosecutorial fiasco.

    “Since it has now been confirmed that President Muhammadu Buhari was not taken into confidence before the charge was filed by the Code of Conduct Bureau, it is high time that the Federal Government terminated the criminal proceedings and advised the petitioner to submit his complaint to the National Judicial Council (NJC).

    “No doubt, the Federal Government may not like the much cited case of Nganjiwa v Federal Republic of Nigeria. Personally, I have had cause to criticise the judgment.

    “But until it is set aside by the Supreme Court of Nigeria, the discipline of judicial officers has to be conducted and concluded by the NJC before they are subjected to criminal proceedings,” Falana maintained.

    Ozekhome described the directive as “doubly illegal, unconstitutional, wrongful and unlawful.”

    According to him, the AGF contravened the order of a Federal High Court judgment which required the government to obtain a court order before it can lawfully deploy Presidential Executive Order No: 6.

    Ozekhome said: “Firstly, the Presidency said it was not aware that the CJN was going to be arraigned. Now, on the same Monday it was making its denial, the AGF was writing a letter, which has since gone viral, to the NFIU to freeze the CJN’s accounts, based allegedly on the provisions of Order 6.

    “I argued last July when this order was rolled out that the order itself was illegal, unconstitutional, invalid and even immoral, because it was trying to empower the President to seize or block a citizen’s account, or prevent a Nigerian citizen from travelling without a court order to that effect.

    “The government then tried to rely on a judgment by Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu which validated the order as not being unconstitutional.

    “But Justice Ojukwu’s judgment made it very clear that for the order to be valid, for any citizen’s account to be blocked, or for any citizen to be prevented from travelling abroad, the government must first obtain a valid court order empowering it to do so.

    “The judgment is there and it’s very clear, because that is the order the AGF is relying on. You cannot rely on an order beyond what the order itself provides. Therefore, the judgment directly overrode the provisions of the order.

    “In this case, it has not been shown that the Attorney-General obtained any court order, prior to allegedly directing the NFIU to freeze the account.

    “That again makes it doubly illegal, unconstitutional, wrongful and unlawful.”

    To  Adegboruwa, the letter written by the AGF to the NFIU “is misplaced”, adding that CJN’s current travails “is unnecessary”.

    He said: “The Executive Order 6 has to do with those who have corruption cases still pending in court, and their names were actually listed in that order – about 155 cases. At the time the order was enforced, this case had not started.

    “The charge against the CJN is not about corruption. It’s a matter of omission to declare assets. There is nobody who has said that the assets are proceeds of crime. There is no such allegation now at all. So Executive Order 6 cannot apply.”

    Adegboruwa disagreed with those asking Chief Justice Onnoghen to clear his name, saying things must be done properly.

    “I support that nobody is above the law but I think that the current effort to demonise the Judiciary through the office of the CJN is not in the best interest of this nation. It will be counter-productive.

    “Our law accommodates everything. You must have a key to enter the courtroom. There is nothing technical about jurisdiction. It was raised on behalf of President Buhari during his certificate case. You don’t jump the gun. There is what we call condition precedent.

    “After all, judges that were taken before the NJC, like Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia, has since been dismissed. We can’t bury anything under the ground but we’re saying follow due process,” the lawyer said.

    He also faulted the manner in which details about the charge were made public, saying the CJN’s family was being endangered.

    “Now we have the form filled by the CJN with his handwriting all over the social media, with his private telephone number, names of his family members, his children. That is not how to treat the number four citizen of this country. I don’t think the government can be fighting against itself. A house divided against itself cannot stand,” he said.

    The Body of Senior Advocates of Nigeria (BOSAN) has summoned a meeting of all SANs to discuss Chief Justice Onnoghen’s fate.

    A Senior Advocate, whose views were sought on the issue, said: “The Body of Senior Advocates has scheduled a meeting to discuss the matter on Saturday.

    “So, I don’t want to pre-empt what we have to discuss. All the SANs will be there. We’ll table the issues and take a position together. If I say anything now I might undermine their position.”

     

  • Patience Jonathan’s $15.5m: Court affirms Ozekhome as convicted companies’ counsel

    The Federal High Court in Lagos yesterday held that a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Chief Mike Ozekhome was validly appointed to represent four companies that pleaded guilty to laundering $15.5million allegedly belonging to former First Lady Dame Patience Jonathan.

    Justice Babs Kuewumi held that another lawyer, Luke Aghanenu, who claimed to have been appointed by the companies’ directors, was not properly briefed.

    The companies are: 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.

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) arraigned them with a former Special Adviser on Domestic Affairs to President Jonathan, Waripamo Dudafa, a lawyer Amajuoyi Briggs, who is the companies’ secretary, and a banker, Adedamola Bolodeoku.

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

    Aghanenu had filed a motion for change of counsel, praying the court to hold that he was validly appointed by the companies’ directors to represent them, not Ozekhome.

    But, Ozekhome urged the court to dismiss the application for change of counsel, arguing that he was authorised to act as the companies’ counsel through a letter by Briggs.

    Ruling, Justice Kuewumi held that if the companies wanted to change the counsel that was appointed by their secretary, it ought to be by board resolution.

    He said there was no such resolution before him, and that the individual hand-written letters by the companies’ directors fell short of the minimum requirement.

    “The fourth to seventh defendants are limited liability companies. If they are to change counsel, it should be by way of board resolution,” he said.

    Besides, Justice Kuewumi noted that he had earlier ruled on the issue when there was a dispute on representation, in which he recognised Ozekhome as the authorised counsel.

    “Until that decision is appealed against, this application is bound to fail. Same is hereby dismissed,” the judge held.

    During hearing of the application, Ozekhome and EFCC’s lawyer Rotimi Oyedepo had clashed when Oyedepo said he was not opposed to the application for change of counsel.

    Ozekhome had accused EFCC of trying to determine which lawyer would represent the companies, adding that the prosecution ought not be interested in who represented the companies.

    He said: “Because we want to set aside the guilty plea of the companies, they arranged with the EFCC to change counsel. We’ll not allow that to happen. They’ll continue to contend with my face. It already show your interest, that you (EFCC) have an interest in who represents the defendant you’re prosecuting,”

    But, Oyedepo described Ozekhome’s comments as prejudicial, saying they were unfair to him and EFCC.

    “The allegation made by the learned SAN is totally unmeritorious. It is not in the interest of justice. It’s prejudicial to us. It’s unfortunate.

    “This not the only case we are both involved in, so why would I not want to see his face?  My prayer is that he should be busy, that people should contact and give him briefs,” he said.

    Oyedepo said it was wrong for Ozekhome to “scandalise” him, but the SAN insisted that the EFCC had a preference for the lawyer who would represent the firms.

    In an affidavit in support of Ozekhome’s motion, a lawyer in his firm, Chimaobi Onuigbo, said the companies’ representatives who pleaded guilty to money laundering (Friday Davis, Agbo Baro, Dioghowori Fredrick and Taiwo Ebenezer) had earlier refused to accept service of processes in a suit by Mrs Jonathan against EFCC and others pending before Justice Mohammed Idris of the same court.

    The deponent noted that Justice Idris had directed parties to serve Briggs with the process since he was on record as the Companies’ Secretary.

    Ozekhome said when Briggs was served with the processes, he instructed him to defend the companies.

    “I was briefed not just on this matter but on the other matters involving the companies, even on appeal. They want an unknown entity to displace me. It is infra dignitatem (beneath dignity), abominable,” he said.

    But, Oyedepo said the court had earlier recognised the companies’ individual representatives, who he said had the right to appoint their counsel.

    After recognising Ozekhome, Justice Kuewumi adjourned till May 2 for hearing of other pending applications.

     

  • Patience Jonathan: Court affirms Ozekhome as convicted companies’ counsel

    The Federal High Court in Lagos on Tuesday held that a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Chief Mike Ozekhome, was validly appointed to represent four companies that pleaded guilty to laundering $15.5million allegedly belonging to former First Lady, Patience Jonathan.

    Justice Babs Kuewumi held that another lawyer, Luke Aghanenu, who claimed to have been appointed by the companies’ directors, was not properly briefed.

    The companies are – Pluto Property and Investment Company Limited, Seagate Property Development and Investment Company Limited, Trans Ocean Property and Investment Company Limited and Avalon Global Property Development Limited.

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) arraigned the firms with a former Special Adviser on Domestic Affairs to ex- President Goodluck Jonathan, Waripamo Dudafa, a lawyer, Amajuoyi Briggs, who is the companies’ secretary, and a banker, Adedamola Bolodeoku.

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

    Aghanenu had filed a motion for change of counsel, praying the court to hold that he was validly appointed by the companies’ directors to represent them, not Ozekhome.

    But, Ozekhome urged the court to dismiss the application for change of counsel, arguing that he was authorised to act as the companies’ counsel through a letter by Briggs.

    Ruling, Justice Kuewumi held that if the companies wanted to change the counsel that was appointed by their secretary, it ought to be by board resolution.

    He said there was no such resolution before him and that the individual hand-written letters by the companies’ directors fell short of the minimum requirement.

    “The fourth to seventh defendants are limited liability companies. If they are to change counsel, it should be by way of board resolution,” he said.

    Besides, Justice Kuewumi noted that he had earlier ruled on the issue when there was a dispute on representation, in which he recognised Ozekhome as the authorised counsel.

    “Until that decision is appealed against, this application is bound to fail. Same is hereby dismissed,” the judge held.

     

  • Patience Jonathan’s $15.5m: I was appointed to represent firms, says Ozekhome

    Patience Jonathan’s $15.5m: I was appointed to represent firms, says Ozekhome

    A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Chief Mike Ozekhome, yesterday told the Federal High Court in Lagos that he was validly appointed to represent four companies that pleaded guilty to laundering $15.5million allegedly belonging to former First Lady Dame Patience Jonathan.

    Another lawyer, Luke Aghanenu, had claimed that he was briefed by the companies to represent them.

    Ozekhome is praying the court to nullify the guilty plea entered by the companies on the basis that they were not given fair hearing.

    The companies through their representatives pleaded guilty on September 15, 2016, and were convicted for laundering the money when they were arraigned before Justice Babs Kuewumi.

    The companies are: 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.

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) arraigned them with a former Special Adviser on Domestic Affairs to President Jonathan, Waripamo Dudafa, a lawyer Amajuoyi Briggs and a banker, Adedamola Bolodeoku.

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

    Aghanenu filed a motion for change of counsel, praying the court to hold that he was validly appointed by the companies’ directors to represent them, not Ozekhome.

    But, Ozekhome, in his counter-affidavit, said he was properly briefed by the companies through their secretary, Briggs, to handle their case.

    In an affidavit in support of Ozekhome’s motion, a lawyer in his firm, Chimaobi Onuigbo, said the companies representatives who pleaded guilty to money laundering (Friday Davis, Agbo Baro, Dioghowori Fredrick and Taiwo Ebenezer) had earlier denied having anything to do with the companies or being directors.

    He said the representatives also refused to accept service of processes in a suit by Mrs Jonathan against EFCC and others pending before Justice Mohammed Idris.

    The deponent noted that Justice Idris had directed parties to serve Briggs with the process since he was on record as the Companies’ Secretary.

    Ozekhome said when Briggs was served with the processes, he instructed him to defend the companies.

    “Briggs then deposed to an affidavit…where he clearly stated that Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN) was instructed by the companies to undertake the defence of the 4th – 7th defendants (companies) in all legal proceedings they were involved in,” said the deponent.

    The SAN added that there was no resolution of the board or general meeting of any of the companies that authorised change of counsel, adding that companies through Briggs have not asked him to stop representing them.

    “The attempt to appoint another legal representative by the directors is invalid, having regard to the fact that he (Briggs) vide a sworn affidavit and a letter of instruction given to Chief Ozekhome, asked him to represent the 4th – 7th defendants,” he said.

    Besides, he said Justice Kuewumi had earlier ruled on a dispute on representation, recognising him as the authorised counsel for the companies; therefore, the judge had become functus officio.

    “I know that the application to change counsel is targeted at impeding the administration of justice and to prevent the 4th – 7th defendants from obtaining justice before this Honourable Court.

    “It will be prejudicial to the 4th – 7th defendants as well as the interest of justice in this case if the applicants are granted their prayers for change of counsel,” Ozekhome said.

    Justice Kuewumi adjourned till February 14 for hearing.

  • Ozekhome, free speech and Fawehinmi lecture

    Ozekhome, free speech and Fawehinmi lecture

    MIKE Ozekhome, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), may be used to being heckled and disparaged privately and publicly, but it is unlikely he was not rattled by the intense booing and insults he received when he attended, as a discussant, the 14th Gani Fawehinmi Annual Lecture in Lagos last Monday. Mr Ozekhome was mentored by the late Mr Fawehinmi, the enigmatic, charismatic and iconoclastic lawyer and activist who died in 2009. It is ironic that nine years later, the mentee suffered the indignity of first being barred by protesting youths from entering the venue of the lecture at the Lagos Airport Hotel, and when that failed, he was considerably heckled. He tried to give as much as he got from the youths, and stood defiant throughout, but his feathers were undoubtedly ruffled, if not singed.

    The protesters complained that Mr Ozekhome was a defender of corrupt people whom the late Mr Fawehinmi would never have defended. They cited the examples of three of Mr Ozekhome’s clients, to wit, Senate President Bukola Saraki, Governor Ayo Fayose of Ekiti State, and former First Lady Patience Jonathan. It was obvious the youths had concluded that these three persons were corrupt, regardless of the fact that no court had pronounced them guilty. It was enough that in a general sense, everyone seemed to believe they were corrupt. And though Mr Ozekhome cited cases where Mr Fawehinmi defended those summarily pronounced corrupt by past military governments, and vaguely drew attention to the Buhari presidency’s abridgment of the rule of law in the case of the 347 Shiite members massacred by security forces in December 2015, the protesters were not impressed.

    Far beyond Mr Ozekhome’s controversial decision to defend those accused of being corrupt, the more pressing worry is that the country has seemed to position itself to be hoodwinked by any populist, propagandist and megalomaniac. Mr Fawehinmi might not have defended those he thought were corrupt, and who were probably seen to be so by the public, as Femi Falana, another SAN and activist, clarified during the lecture, it is certainly within the rights of both Mr Ozekhome and his clients to give and receive legal services in courts. What the public should be concerned about is that justice, rather than its perversion, must be done and seen to be done. Cruelly, in Nigeria, that has not always been the case. But Nigeria is not alone in the world in submitting to judicial perversion, as inexcusable as this is.

    The danger of stigmatising someone for holding unpopular position or view, and going ahead to deny him his rights, is that it surreptitiously fosters a dangerously illiberal environment in which all it takes to be lynched, physically or figuratively, is for one’s enemies to foist a negative label on him. If youths or anyone for that matter should form the pernicious habit of only listening to people they agree with, Nigeria would become a miserable place. They can protest all they want, but they overreached themselves when they tried to bar Mr Ozekhome from entering the hall and airing his views. Did they rule out being won to his viewpoint? Were they indeed afraid to be persuaded? Did they fear alternative viewpoints? And must they conclude about someone’s guilt without due judicial process and pronouncement?

    It is the same folly that is at play in Ekiti State where Mr Fayose, himself a victim of oppressive public opinion and illiberal government policies, is attempting to bar Minister of Solid Minerals, Kayode Fayemi, from contesting the next governorship election in the state. It is the same indefensible behaviour that has seen former National Security Adviser (NSA), Sambo Dasuki, whom everyone believes to be guilty of corruption, kept behind bars in defiance of the rule of law. And it is the same arrant nonsense that has kept the Shiite leader, Ibraheem El-Zakzaky, and his wife in detention in flagrant disobedience to the law. All it takes for the abridgement of a Nigerian’s rights is for the government and vested interests to mischievously label an opponent, and then go on to justify depriving him of his rights.

    Those who encourage this abominable practice must pray that on one inauspicious tomorrow, the shoe will not be on the other foot. The protesting youths at the Lagos Airport Hotel are of course too far gone to offer Mr Ozekhome the apology he deserves, but there is no question that free speech is endangered in Nigeria, as the government itself, shorn of every uplifting philosophy, has amply demonstrated.

  • Ozekhome mobbed at Fawehinmi lecture

    Ozekhome mobbed at Fawehinmi lecture

    There was a mild drama yesterday  at the 14th Gani Fawehinmi Annual Lecture when angry protesters mobbed Chief  Mike Ozekhome (SAN) and stopped him from mounting the podium to speak.

    The incident happened at the Lagos Airport Hotel, Ikeja, venue of the lecture organised by the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Ikeja Branch and which has as its theme: “Federalism, Restructuring and Good Governance: Striking a Balance”.

    Ozekhome, who arrived the venue at about 1.10 p.m.,  was stopped from entering the hall by the protesters comprising  some youth and students. They milled round the  senior lawyer singing songs composed of defamatory words as they stopped him from entering the hall.

    The incident forced the keynote speaker, a former Dean, Faculty of Law, Obafemi Awolowo (OAU), Ile-Ife, Prof Demola Popoola to stop his paper for about 20 minutes.

    At the high table was the former General Secretary of the National Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers (NUPENG), Chief Frank Ovie Kokori, who was chairman of the event, and the Adeboruwa of Igbogbo, Oba Semiu Orimadegun Kasali among others.

    Ozekhome was slated as a contributor alongside Ms Onyeka Onwenu and Seun Kuti, son of late Fela Anikulapo Kuti.

    The protesters accused Ozekhome of defending personalities like Governor Ayodele Fayose of Ekiti state, wife of former President, Mrs Patience Jonathan and Senate President Bukola Saraki among others, who they labeled as corrupt,  contrary to the ideals for which the late Chief Gani Fawehinmi stood for.

    It took the intervention of Mr Femi Falana (SAN), the NBA Ikeja Chairman,  Mr Adeshina Ogunlana and Mr Mohammed Fawehinmi to bring the situation under control.

    Mohammed  told the protesting youths that his late father did not believe in violence but rather was very democratic.

    He said late Fawehinmi would not have approved what they did because Chief Ozekhome was at the event for a purpose.

    “This gathering is a democratic gathering and it is a gathering in which security should not  restrict anybody”, he said adding that he was about nine years old when Chief Ozekhome was working as a counsel in his late father’s chamber.

    Ozekhome, who later addressed the gathering, told them that he was very close to the late Fawehinmi and that together they formulated and started the publication, “Nigerian weekly Law Report” .

    He said:”Gani fought across the country handling many cases including controversial ones.”

    He rcalled that when in 1983, the NBA said that lawyers should not defend alleged corrupt politicians under the administration of Gens. Muhammadu Buhari and Tunde Idiagbon when they were fighting corruption, “but Gani said No; these people are entitled to their rights.

    “By Section 36 of the Constitution, every person’s innocence is presumed; I was with Gani when we were defending the so-called corrupt politicians.

    “I am just coming now from the court where the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) wanted to freeze the account of a citizen via ex parte.

    “I just stopped them again for the 20th time, I will continue to fight the government which looks the other way when corruption is recorded in their system. “I have told Mr Magu three times to prosecute at least one person in their government so that we can show that corruption is being fought,’’ he said.

    “The Shiites that were mowed down during their protests, the massacre in Southern Kaduna, Enugu State and so many other incidents are as a result of lack of true federalism and restructuring,’’ he said.

    His address was punctuated by the protesters who shouted  “lies, lies, lies’’ even as the senior advocate told the protesters that he would not be intimidated and called them hired protersters.

    Falana gave clarifications that the account given by Ozekhome should not be misunderstood to mean that Gani was a defender of  corruption.

    Falana said Gani  took on some cases to expose corruption and corrupt politicians.

    “He never filed a stay of proceedings. If you have a bad case, Gani would simply tell you that you have a bad case. Go and find out from your history books, Gani never defended anyone being tried by the EFCC or ICPC, I need to correct that misconception”, he said.

    Prof. Popoola, in his lecture titled, “ Re-Inventing the Nigerian State: Imperatives, Prospects and Challenges of Federalism, Restructuring and Good Governance” said the country cannot have meaningful restructuring without economic restructuring.

    He said tit would be difficult for the country to free herself from  the many problems it is going through now, including restructuring, not until the people start thinking like global citizens.

  • Sagay shocked as Ozekhome, others hail judgment

    Sagay shocked as Ozekhome, others hail judgment

    Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC) Chairman Prof Itse Sagay (SAN) yesterday expressed shock over Senate President Bukola Saraki’s acquittal by the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).

    He said contrary to the tribunal’s position, he was convinced that the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to warrant Saraki to defend himself.

    Sagay said he was concerned about Saraki’s acquittal based on a no-case submission, especially coming soon after Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court, who was accused of corrupt enrichment, was also similarly discharged.

    A no-case is a term in criminal law whereby a defendant seeks acquittal without having to defend himself. Under it, the defendant seeks to be discharged and acquitted on the basis that the prosecution his not adduced sufficient evidence for his trial.

    Sagay said he was “thoroughly shocked” that the CCT did not consider the prosecution’s evidence weighty enough as to reach call on Saraki to enter his defence.

    Asked if he was bothered that Saraki’s acquittal on a no-case submission came soon after that of Ademola, Sagay said: “Of course I’m concerned.”

    The PACAC chairman added: “To start with, I’m shocked, because a lot of materials were put before the court. And for a court to uphold a no-case submission means that there was no prima facie case made. That’s why I’m a bit shocked because I followed the proceedings very closely. But there’s going to be an appeal. We’ll just wait and see what happens then, but I’m thoroughly shocked, yes,” he said.

    Former Lagos Branch chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Mr Chijioke Okoli (SAN) said the Federal Government seemed to be losing high profile cases involving politically exposed persons.

    He attributed it to a “multiplicity of factors”, including shortcomings on the part of the prosecution and the ability of high profile suspects to hire the best defence lawyers.

    Okoli, however, said the government had secured some convictions as published by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) recently.

    He said: “We don’t have exact statistics to deal with (on loss of high profile cases). I’m aware that recently, EFCC chair reeled out some impressive number of convictions they have secured.

    “However, from an anecdotal evidence based on what we read in the papers, it does appear that the politically exposed persons seems to be getting away scot free.

    “One may ask: ‘If the vast majority of politically exposed persons are getting acquitted, then is it the man on the street or you and I who are the perpetrators of this much vaunted bribery corruption?”

    Activist-lawyer Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN) described the verdict as “bold, courageous and right.”

    He took a swipe at the EFCC for engaging in media trial, saying the courts cannot be stampeded into convicting at all costs, despite “visible executive interference and manipulation”.

    Ozekhome urged the government to put its house in order rather than claiming that “corruption is fighting back” and that the courts are against the anti corruption fight.

    Committee for the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR) National President Malachy Ugwummadu urged the government’s prosecutorial team to double its efforts at securing convictions.

    He added: “The fight against corruption is not only effectual or effective when you arrest and arraign suspects particularly, politically exposed persons.”

    Dr Paul Ananaba (SAN) and Abiodun Owonikoko (SAN) said justice had been served with Senate President Bukola Saraki’s acquittal.

    Ananaba said: “It is due process. The matter went on for a while and now the court has ruled on a no-case submission. That is the position now and this has become the law, the CCT having ruled that he has no case to answer. It means the case has come to an end. What CCT has done has become the law.

    “You will recall that Saraki filed several applications before the CCT and even went up to the Supreme Court before coming back for trial.

    “I think nobody should worry because the prosecutor knows what to do if not satisfied. The Constitution provides for appeal.

    “But I think the country has a lot to worry about at this time and some of these disruptions should be avoided. The sitting of the Senate has been affected by this trial. Each time he goes to court, no serious business ever took place.

    “We have an acting President now. We need the attention of our leaders to face major issues confronting the country now. I think the prosecution should look at national interest before any further step is taken.”

    Owonikoko said there were lessons to be learnt.

    “He’s perhaps vindicated and strengthened in authority and integrity by the discharge on the merit which equates to acquittal,” Owonikoko said.

  • Alleged bribery: DSS presents video evidence on Farouk Lawan

    Alleged bribery: DSS presents video evidence on Farouk Lawan

    The  Department of State Security (DSS) on Tuesday presented a video evidence at the FCT High Court, Lugbe, where Mr Femi Otedola was seen giving out a parcel to Hon. Farouq Lawan.

    Justice Angela Otaruku granted the request of the prosecuting counsel, Mr  Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), to play the video as evidence of Lawan collecting the said bribe from Otedola.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the request was made with the Awomolo led the DSS Prosecutor, Mr David Ojataha, Principal Officer in-charge of Technical Operations, DSS in evidence.

    The video, revealing an exchange of parcel, lasted for almost three minutes.

    “The video I just played are those of Mr Femi Otedola and Hon. Farouq Lawan where there was an exchange of parcel at Otedola’s house in Aso drive, Abuja,” said Awomolo.

    The DSS prosecutor, however, told the court that he was saddled with the responsibility of recording the video by the DSS because of his background as an Electronic and Telecommunication Engineer.

    He told the court that he did his work diligently during the course of investigation as an expert.

    He said that though he did not participate in the arrest and detention of the defendant as that was not part of his duty, he only recorded the said video.

    Ojataha added that he did not also take any statement from the defendant during the course of investigation.

    He said that he was only instructed to cover the meeting between both parties based on complaints from Otedola.

    Mr Mike Ozekhome, the defendant’s counsel, while cross examining the DSS prosecutor, said that the device used in playing the CD had no imprint of time and event in the video.

    Ozekhome said that there was nothing to show that the defendant was there to receive bribe.

    He added that there was also nothing in the video to suggest that bribery was discussed because such words like “bribe” was not heard in the video.

    NAN reports that Lawan was the former Committee Chairman of Petroleum Matters in the House of Representatives at the 7th National Assembly.

    He chaired the committee investigating the subsidy fraud in 2012.

    The committee, however, found some oil companies culpable of defrauding the Federal Government via spurious subsidy claim and Zenon Petroleum and Gas Company, belonging to Otedola was found culpable.

    The trial judge, Otaruku, while discharging the DSS prosecutor from the witness box, ordered the prosecution counsel to bring his other witnesses to court on May 10, being the adjourned date of the trial.

     

  • EFCC: Fayose paid Ozekhome from N1.2b Dasuki’s slush fund

    EFCC: Fayose paid Ozekhome from N1.2b Dasuki’s slush fund

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) yesterday said Ekiti State Governor Ayo Fayose paid an intial N75million to a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) ,Mike Ozekhome, from an alleged N1.2billion the governor allegedly received from the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA).

    The commission said it froze Ozekhome’s account because the money was suspected to be a proceed of crime.

    Ozekhome prayed Justice Abdullazeez Anka to unfreeze his firm’s account, which the court froze at EFCC’s instance on February 7.

    Opposing the application, EFCC’s lawyer Rotimi Oyedepo argued that Ozekhome ought to have  known that the money he received was proceeds of “fraudulent activities”.

    He said: “EFCC received an intelligence report that Mr Ayodele Fayose received N1,219,490,000 from the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA) through the former Minister of State for Defence Musiliu Obanikoro, who conveyed the money through an aircraft to Akure airport.

    “It discovered that  N137million was paid into an account,  1003126654, operated by Fayose on June 26, 2014.

    “On August 22 and 27, 2014, N50million and N118million were also credited to the account.”

    Oyedepo said having discovered the funds were “proceeds of crime”, EFCC approached Justice Mohammed Idris of the court’s Lagos division for an order freezing the account.

    The lawyer said the order by Justice Idris was not appealed by either Fayose or the bank, where the money was lodged.

    “The N75million is from the proceed of the alleged crime fraudulently taken from  ONSA and kept in Fayose’s account from where it was transferred to Ozekhome,” he said.

    Oyedepo said EFCC could freeze any account suspected to have received criminal funding even if it was not in possession of the person committing the unlawful act.

    He said nothing had been shown to contradict the fact that the money came from the ONSA,adding that  Ozekhome cannot claim ignorance of the source of the money.

    Arguing his application to defreeze the account, Ozekhome said it was not a lawyer’s duty to investigate the source of his legal fees.

    Besides, he said at the time Fayose paid him the money, the governor’s account had been defreezed by an order made by Justice Taiwo Taiwo of the court’s Ekiti Division on December 13.

    He said the judge, on January 31, also refused EFCC’s application to stay execution of  the December 13 judgment.

    Ozekhome said the EFCC obtained the order freezing his account 47 days after Fayose transferred the N75million.

    “The account frozen by Justice Idris had been defreezed by Justice Taiwo and made operational after it was found that material facts were suppressed,” he said.

    The Senior Advocate said the N75million was part-payment for professional fees having handled eight cases for Fayose and his aides.

    He said the total sum owed his chambers by Fayose was N250million.

    Ozekhome said he wrote Fayose demanding payment, and that the governor sought  his understanding because his account was frozen.

    The SAN said when Justice Taiwo defreezed Fayose’s account, he (Ozekhome) sent the governor a reminder to pay the money.

    “There was no encumbrance on the account from which the money was transferred,” Ozekhome said.

    He said it was wrong for EFCC to conclude that the money was proceeds of crime when Fayose, who enjoys immunity, had not been tried or convicted.

    Besides, Ozekhome said EFCC never served him with the order as required by the court’s rules, adding that the freezing of his account brought opprobrium on him.

    “They did it in bad faith,” he said.

    On whether EFCC violated Justice Taiwo’s order, Oyedepo said nowhere in the judgment did the judge set aside Justice Idris’ ruling.

    Justice Anka adjourned till April 3 for ruling.

  • Fayose paid Ozekhome N75m from Dasuki loot, says EFCC

    Fayose paid Ozekhome N75m from Dasuki loot, says EFCC

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has asked Justice Abdulaziz Anka of the Federal High Court, Lagos, to reject Chief Mike Ozekhome’s bid to unfreeze his Guaranty Trust Bank (GTB) account, which has a balance of N75 million.

    The EFCC claimed the money, which was paid to Ozekhome as legal fee by Ekiti State Governor Ayo Fayose, was part of the N2.26 billion arms procurement fund, which a former National Security Adviser, Col. Sambo Dasuki (rtd.), allegedly looted.

    It said Dasuki routed N1.22 billion of the N2.26 billion to Fayose through a former Minister of State for Defence, Musiliu Obanikoro.The commission stated this yesterday in a counter-affidavit it filed in opposition to Ozekhome’s application.

    Justice Anka froze the account on February 7, following an ex-parte application from the EFCC claiming the N75 million deposited into the account on December 15, was suspected to be proceeds of crime.

    He ordered Ozekhome to forfeit the money for 120 days pending investigation by the EFCC.

    Ozekhome is the counsel to Fayose, whose account was frozen by the EFCC for alleged money laundering.

    But the lawyer approached the court, saying the EFCC misrepresented facts to obtain the order and urged Justice Anka to lift the order.

    The SAN contended that the EFCC’s action was unconstitutional, had no legal justification and was a gross violation of sections 36, 37 and 41 of the 1999 Constitution.

    But in yesterday’s counter-affidavit deposed to by EFCC counsel, Idris Mohammed, the commission stated that after Justice Mohammed Idris of the Federal High Court, Lagos placed a temporary restriction on Fayose’s account, the governor, through Ozekhome, went before Justice Taiwo Taiwo of the Ado Ekiti Division of the Federal High Court to obtain an order to unfreeze the account.

    The prosecutor said even though Fayose was aware the commission immediately appealed Justice Taiwo’s ruling, the governor went ahead to dissipate part of the contentious funds, paying N75 million to Ozekhome, who helped him to secure Justice Taiwo’s unfreezing order.

    The EFCC claimed Ozekhome ought to have “reasonably known that the N75 million was transferred to him” from Fayose’s account, which the EFCC claimed was used to retain proceeds of crime and alleged kick-backs from some contractors in Ekiti State.

    It urged Justice Anka not to unfreeze Ozekhome’s account.

    Justice Anka adjourned till March 7, for hearing.