Tag: Rickey Tarfa

  • N225,000 was a donation not bribe, says Rickey Tarfa

    Embattled Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Chief Rickey Tarfa yesterday admitted that he gave N225,000 to Justice M. N. Yunusa of the Federal High Court, but explained that the money was not a bribe.

    He said it was a donation from him and some of his friends towards the burial of Justice Yunusa’s father-in-law who died on December 28, 2013.

    In an affidavit filed on his behalf at the Federal High Court, Lagos, before Justice Mohammed Idris by one John Olusegun Odubela, Head of Chambers of Messrs Rickey Tarfa and Co., dated February 18, the senior advocate  denied bribing the judge with the money or “any other sum at all.”

    Tarfa appeared yesterday before Justice Idris in continuation of his N2.5 billion fundamental rights suit against the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for wrongful arrest and detention.

    He was represented by  Bolaji Ayorinde (SAN), Anthony Idigbe (SAN) and four other SANs as well as 115 other lawyers.

    The EFCC was represented by Mr. Wahab Shittu and five others.

    Tarfa was arrested by operatives of the commission on February 5, within the premises of the Lagos State High Court in Igbosere after a five-hour stand off during which the EFCC claimed that he prevented its operatives from arresting two of Tarfa’s clients.

    The commission alleged that Tarfa hid the foreigners in his car from about 11:30 am until some minutes past 5pm.

    In response to the senior lawyer’s suit, the EFCC filed preliminary objection on the grounds that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

    In a counter-affidavit filed on February 19 by one of the commission’s operatives that arrested Tarfa, Moses Awolusi said  that a check carried out on the Access Bank account of Tarfa’s law firm revealed that a sum of N225,000 was sent to Justice Mohammed Yunusa on January 7, 2014.

    The EFCC claimed on Thursday that the amount was a bribe.

    Awolusi said: “I know from the 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 investigations have 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 Justice M.N. Yunusa in furtherance of the understanding between the applicant and the particular judge.”

    However, Tarfa averred through Odubela that the money in question was a donation from a committee of friends of the judge, including him, to support the judge in respect of  the burial of his late father-in-law in Maiduguri since they could not be there physically.

    Odubela stated that his principal, Tarfa, was not informed upon his arrest and detention on February 5 by the EFCC that he was arrested on the allegation of bribing the judge.

    He said the claim of the EFCC that the judge acknowledged the receipt of the alleged bribe by a text message which reads: “Thanks my senior advocate”, was untrue.

    In urging the court to dismiss Tarfa’s claim for exemplary damages of N2.5b, Shittu said from the facts  available  the commission never set out to arrest the applicant.

    He said Tarfa invited arrest by obstructing the commission’s officials from carrying out their lawful duties.

    “I urge the court to dismiss the entire suit with punitive costs,” Shittu added.

  • Apo six: Court declines prosecution witness recall

    An Abuja High Court on Thursday refused an application to recall a prosecution witness, Mr. Ayuba Ede, an Assistant Commissioner of Police, in the alleged Apo six killings.

    The News Agency of Nigeria reports that Justice Ishaq Bello ordered for the continuation of cross examination of the witness.

    It would be recalled that Mr. Rickey Tarfa, counsel to Danjuma Ibrahim, a Deputy Commissioner of Police, had earlier filed an application challenging the recall of Ede as a witness in the case.

    He said that on February 14, 2012, Ede was cross examined by the prosecuting counsel, Chief Chris Uche (SAN).

    “At that sitting, the prosecutor informed the court that he will not be re-examining the witness and the witness was accordingly discharged.

    “My lord, it is pertinent to state that the prosecution thereafter sought for several adjournments to enable them to field other witnesses in support of their case, but they failed to do so,” Tarfa said.

    He said that when Ede was called, the prosecution led him in evidence and tendered two large brown parcels which were admitted in evidence and marked as exhibits 12 and 12A.

    He argued that upon unveiling the parcels, an AK 47 rifle and magazine were allegedly found.

    Tarfa, therefore, urged the court to determine whether Ede or any other prosecution witness, who had testified and discharged, could be recalled at the whims of the prosecution.

    “Can a witness be recalled without proper application and without placing sufficient materials before the court to consider in exercising its discretion as to whether or not to allow the recall of such a witness,” he said.

    He, therefore, urged the court to discountenance the prayer of the prosecution to recall Ede as witness.

    Earlier, the prosecuting counsel (Chris Uche) urged the court to recall Ede, an investigation officer, to tender exhibits recovered in the course of investigation.

    He said it was proper to recall Ede in court to give further evidence based on the provisions of Section 237 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

    Uche said that the court might at the stage of any inquiry, trial or other judicial proceedings, order a recall of any witness, where necessary.

     

  • Bribery scam: Farouk, Emenalo want charges quashed

    Bribery scam: Farouk, Emenalo want charges quashed

    Former Chairman of the House of Representatives Adhoc committee on fuel subsidy, Hon. Farouk Lawan and the Secretary of the Committee, Boniface Emenalo on Wednesday urged an Abuja High Court to throw out the charge of receiving$620,000 against them.

    The duo are facing trial for allegedly receiving the sum from businessman, Femi Otedola to influence the report of the committee in favour of Zenon Oil and Gas Limited.

    Their counsel, Mr Rickey Tarfa, SAN argued that the court ought not to have granted the application for leave to prefer the charges because the prosecution failed to provide adequate materials necessary for the judge to exercise his discretion to grant the application.

    The trial judge, Justice Mudashiru Oniyangi   after listening to the arguments for and against the application to quash the charges said he would deliver a ruling on May 2, 2013.

    Tarfa, while substantiating his application to quash the charges,asked the court to discharge the accused since no prima-facie case had been made against them.

    He argued that the foundation  of the case against them was not legally laid.

    He said the prosecutor failed to comply with the provisions of section 155 (1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code which required that statements of witnesses be attached to the application to prefer charges.

    Although the trial was scheduled to commence on Wenesday, Tarfa insisted that the court must first hear and determine the application to quash the charges.

    He said that the application to quash the charges also challenged the jurisdiction of the court to conduct the trial.

    The prosecuting counsel, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN in his response asked the court to dismiss the application even as he described it as a ploy to waste the time of the court.

    Awomolo said the Supreme Court had held in many cases that the purpose of seeking for leave of court’s to prefer charges was to ensure that frivolous criminal charges were not filed and not to allow the accused persons to see the details of the charges against them.

    He argued that the charges remained valid adding that non-attachment of witnesses’ statement did not vitiate the legality of the charges.

    Lawan and Emenalo were said to have violated the provisions of the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related Offences Commission Act.