The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Rotimi Jacobs

  • FG asks Supreme Court to restore charges against Saraki

    FG asks Supreme Court to restore charges against Saraki

    The Federal Government has asked the Supreme Court to restore the charges it brought against Senate President, Bukola Saraki, before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).

    The federal government wants the Supreme Court to set aside part the December 12, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja, which struck out 15 of the 18 charges against Saraki.

    The government’s request is contained in a cross-appeal it filed, complaining against part of the judgment, particularly where the Appeal Court held that the prosecution did not establish a prima facie case in counts 1, 2, 3, 7 and 18 of the false assets declaration trial.

    Saraki was charged before the CCT on charges of corruption and false declaration of assets.

    At the conclusion of the prosecution’s case, Saraki made a no case submission, which the CCT, in a ruling of June 14, 2017, upheld and discharged and acquitted him on the grounds that the prosecution failed to prove its case.

    Upon appeal at the Appeal Court by the state, the appellate court, in its December 12, 2017 judgment, held among others that the prosecution was able to establish a prima facie case against Saraki in three of the 18 –count charge brought against the Senate president.

    The counts are – 4, 5 and 6.

    The Appeal Court ordered that Saraki be made to enter defence in respect of the three charges when trial resumes before the CCT.

    Saraki had since approached the Supreme Court for relief and asked the apex court to set aside the aspect of the judgment where he was ordered to enter defence before the CCT.

    But, in its 15-ground cross appeal, the prosecution led by Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), wants the 15 counts voided by the Court of Appeal restored by the Supreme Court to enable Saraki defend himself against all the 18 charges.

    The cross appellant faulted the Court of Appeal’s decision that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case in relation to the voided 15 counts.

    It argued that by the decision, the appellate court failed to give effect to  paragraphs 11(2), 11(3) and 13 of Part 1, 5th Schedule of the Constitution that placed the burden on the defendant to prove his/her innocence.

     

  • Supreme Court rules on Dasuki’s detention March 2

    Supreme Court rules on Dasuki’s detention March 2

    The Supreme Court on Monday fixed March 2 for judgment on an appeal by former National Security Adviser (NSA), Col. Sambo Dasuki, challenging his alleged indefinite detention.

    The panel of five Justices, led by Dattijo Mohammed, gave the date after counsels to the parties in the case adopted their addresses.

    The ex-NSA had on June 15, 2016 at the Court of Appeal in Abuja, lost his bid to enforce his freedom after securing bails on all the charges against him.

    It is recalled that Dasuki is standing trial for allegedly mismanaging 2.1 billion dollars meant for purchase of arms to fight the Boko Haram insurgents.

    Dasuki’s counsel, Mr Joe Daudu, argued that the decision of the Court of Appeal was erroneous, adding that it was incumbent on the Supreme Court to restore the integrity of all courts.

    Daudu submitted that it was out of place for the court of appeal to scuttle the fundamental rights of a citizen after well-considered decisions of four courts that admitted the applicant to bail.

    He said that his client needed the bail to prepare his defence, adding that he could not have access to security documents while in detention.

    “My Lords, Dasuki is already being treated as a convict, even when none of the charges brought against him has been concluded.

    “We sincerely pray this esteemed court to do the needful by setting aside the decision of the lower court.

    “We also pray the court to momentarily halt the applicant’s trial until the Federal Government obeys the bail order of court,’’ Daudu said.

    Mr Rotimi Jacobs, counsel to EFCC, opposed the appeal, saying that it lacked merit and should be dismissed.

    He said the bail condition granted Dasuki was perfected on December 29, 2015, adding that a warrant of release to that effect was served on the Comptroller of Prisons in Kuje, upon which he was released.

    Jacobs said the Federal Government had not violated his rights, adding that the applicant was only re-arrested by the operatives of the DSS over other fraud allegations.

    He said that it was unfair for the applicant to consider his re-arrest as a disobedience to court’s order on his bail.

    He said that no court bail was targeted at the DSS when granted.

    Read also: Dasuki: Court declines request for arrest warrant against DSS’ DG

    “The EFCC which put Dasuki on trial on criminal charges at the FCT High Court cannot be held responsible for the action of the DSS on the ground that the two agencies are different entities.

    “Besides, My Lords, the appeal court has said there was no existing order against the re-arrest of Dasuki.

    “Suffice to say that there cannot be a disobedience to a non-existing court order.

    “We pray the apex court to affirm the decision of the lower court which ordered the continuation of the applicant’s trial even while he remains in detention,’’ he said.

    Dasuki had approached Supreme Court praying it to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal which exonerated EFCC from his re-arrest shortly after he perfected his bail conditions.

    He further asked the court to void the ruling of the Federal High Court.

    The trial court had held that DSS and EFCC were distinct agents of the Federal Government, which is the complainant in the charges against the applicant.

    Dasuki had alleged that such pronouncement had given the two agents of government handling the trial to act at variance and against justice.

    NAN

  • Alleged N3.2b fraud: Kalu’s trial stalled again

    Alleged N3.2b fraud: Kalu’s trial stalled again

    The trial of a former Governor of Abia, Orji Uzor Kalu, charged with N3.2 billion fraud,on Wednesday suffered another setback at a Federal High Court, Lagos, as the judge was unavailable.

    Kalu was arraigned by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission ( EFCC ) alongside his former Commissioner for Finance, Ude Udeogo, on 34 counts bordering on fraud.

    Also charged is Kalu’s company, Slok Nigerai Ltd; the accused had pleaded not guilty to the charges.

    Justice Mohammed Idris was absent at Wednesday’s scheduled proceedings as he was said to be attending a conference outside the state.

    Consequently, the court fixed continuation of trial for Nov. 28, 29, 30 and Dec. 1.

    On Oct. 3, the absence of Counsel to the EFCC, Mr Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) had stalled trial as he wrote to the court informing it of his absence and asked for a short adjournment which was scheduled for Wednesday, Nov. 8.

    The EFCC had on Oct. 31, 2016, slammed fraud charges on Kalu and Udeogo.

    The accused had allegedly committed the offences between August 2001 and October 2005 by utilising his company to retain in the account of a First Inland Bank, (now FCMB), the sum of N200 million.

    The prosecution said the money formed part of funds illegally derived from the coffers of the Abia State Government.

    Slok Nigeria Ltd and Emeka Abone, still at large, were also alleged to have retained in the company’s account the sum of N200 million on behalf of the first accused.

    The accused were also alleged to have retained about N2.5 billion in different accounts which funds were said to belong to the Abia  Government.

    Cumulatively, in all the counts, the accused were alleged to have diverted over N3.2 billion from the Abia Government’s treasury during Kalu’s tenure as governor.

    The offences contravened Sections 15(6), 16, and 21 of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, Laws of the Federation 2005 as well as the Money Laundering Act of 1995 (as amended by the amendment Act No. 9 of 2002 and Section 477 of the Criminal Code Act, Laws of the Federation, 1990.

    NAN

  • Court adjourns Dariye ’s alleged N1.162bn fraud trial

    Court adjourns Dariye ’s alleged N1.162bn fraud trial

    An FCT High Court in Gudu, on Monday adjourned the trial of former Gov. Joshua Dariye of Plateau until Oct.10 at the instance of the defence.

    Dariye is facing a 21-count charge bordering on money laundering and diversion of ecological fund to the tune of N1.162 billion.

    Dariye’s new counsel, former Attorney General of the Federation, Mr Kanu Agabi (SAN), asked for the adjournment to enable him get acquainted with the case.

    “I am appealing for the very last time and beg you on my knees. I have also pleaded with Rotimi Jacobs, grant us one more adjournment to get acquainted with the case,’’ Agabi said.

    In his response, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s (EFCC) prosecuting counsel, Mr Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), told the court that the case had lingered for so long.

    Jacobs noted that the judge had advised the defendant to bring a counsel who will continue with the case when his former counsel withdrew from the matter.

    He said the defendant had called 16 witnesses, but yet to close his case.

    He reminded the court that it was while Agabi was the Attorney General of the Federation that Dariye was arrested and investigated.

    According to him, the UK has even refunded some of the stolen funds recovered from Dariye to the Federal Government.

    “How can he then come and appear as defence counsel,’’ Jacobs queried.

    Justice Adebukola Banjoko, in granting the adjournment, said that she did that in the interest of justice.

    Banjoko also said that she expected the defence counsel to honour his word and study the case.

    “Now that you are here, I know you will live up to expectation,’’ she said.

    The judge also ordered that the new counsel be furnished with the records of proceedings to enable him get acquainted with the case.

  • Court adjourns Badeh’s trial till July 4

    Court adjourns Badeh’s trial till July 4

    The trial of a former Chief of Defence Staff, Alex Badeh, was stalled on Monday, due to the ill health of the 19th prosecution witness.

    Justice Okon Abang adjourned the matter until July 4 for continuation of trial.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Badeh is standing trial for allegedly abusing his office by diverting N3.97 billion.

    The diverted money was meant for arms purchase in the face of worsening destructions by Boko Haram terrorists.

    At the resumed hearing, the Prosecuting Counsel, Mr Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), told court that he had to compel the witness to attend court but that the witness could not testify, due to ill health.

    “I practically forced the witness to be here today but I will not like the witness to testify in this state of mind,” Jacobs said.

    But, in spite of the presence of the witness in court, Jacobs prayed for an adjournment to enable the witness get better so that he could give his testimony in good health.

  • Kalu: Witness writes letter in court to prove handwriting

    Kalu: Witness writes letter in court to prove handwriting

    The cashier at the Abia State Government House, Umuahia during the tenure of former Governor Orji Uzor Kalu, Mr. Romanus Madu, Tuesday wrote a letter in court to prove his handwriting and signature.

    Madu wrote the letter in facie curiae (in the presence of the court) at the resumed trial of Kalu for an alleged N2.9bn fraud before the Federal High Court in Lagos.

    Kalu, Udeh Jones Udeogu and Slok Nigeria Limited were arraigned last October 31 before Justice Mohammed Idris by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on a 34-count charge of N3.2 billion fraud.

    They pleaded not guilty.

    Madu, who is now Permanent Secretary in Abia State, is the EFCC’s fourth witness in its bid to prove its charge against the defendants.

    On June 5, 2017 Madu told the court that he did not author a statement requesting for the sum of N30.8 million bank draft in the course of his duties as a cashier in the Abia State House in 2005.

    He identified his name on the document, but said he was not the person that wrote it, adding that his signature was absent.

    At the resumption of proceedings Tuesday, EFCC counsel Rotimi Jacobs asked the witness to write a request for a bank draft from a fictional bank.

    The letter was as follows: “Sir, kindly issue me with two bank drafts for, 1. Twenty One Million Naira in favour of Inland Bank Plc. 2. Ten Million Naira in favour of Inland Bank both payable at Apapa. Thanks in anticipation of your co-operation. Signed R. K. Madu.”

    Madu complied and the letter was accepted as evidence by the court.

    Earlier, the court upheld the defendants’ argument on June 5, that Madu could not be compelled to give opinion evidence on signatures of persons he claimed to not know.

    Jacobs had contended that the witness was “highly qualified” to give evidence on the statement he allegedly wrote and signed.

    According to him, evidence with regard to handwriting is not the exclusive preserve of an expert.

    “The law permits the court to take evidence from the person whose handwriting was said to have been forged or the person who is familiar with the handwriting”, Jacobs said.

    This was opposed by Kalu’s lawyer, Chief Awa Kalu (SAN) and counsel to the third defendant (Slok Nigeria Ltd), K. C. Nwofo (SAN), on the grounds, among others, that the practice was contrary to the provisions of the Evidence Act.

    In his ruling, the Justice Idris held that the sole question was as to whether a witness can give opinion evidence.

    Citing the provisions of sections 67, 68 and 70 of the Evidence Act, the court held that expert opinion of handwriting is an integral part of the law governing evidence.

    He said: “Although the court can compare handwritings, same can only arise when in issue.

    “In all, I find that PW4 cannot give opinion evidence as to the document in question.

    “Where the issue is whether the handwriting is for PW4 or not, it is my opinion that the witness cannot give evidence on that.

    “The witness cannot compare handwriting on two different documents, and then give opinion on same.

    “In the light of the above, the objection raised by learned counsel is hereby sustained,”

    In continuation of his evidence-in-chief, the witness was shown exhibit B6 which is an account statement of Abia State government house, and asked to comment on a transaction of August 22, 2005.

    The witness told the court that on the said date, he made cash withdrawals of N15 million and N25million, adding that the sums were handed over to his boss, Udeogo.

    During cross-examination by defence counsel, the witness told the court that he joined the civil service in 1981, adding that his appointment was civil and not political.

    Defence counsel then asked: “You joined the civil service in 1981 and ought to have retired in 2016, what happened?”

    In response, the witness told the court that he was granted an extension of office by the governor of Abia State.

    Again, defence counsel asked: “When you were a cashier in the payroll, did your schedule of duty include cashing cheques?”

    “No,” the witness replied

    Justice Idris adjourned till today (June 7) for continuation of trial.

     

  • Witness’s health stalls Badeh’s trial over alleged N3.97bn fraud

    The ongoing trial of former Chief of Defence Staff, Alex Badeh, was on Wednesday stalled due to the ill health of the prosecution’s witness.

    At the resumed hearing, the prosecuting counsel, Mr Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) told the Federal High Court, Abuja, that the next witness the prosecution intended to call was sick.

    Jacobs prayed the court for an adjournment to enable the witness recover; the defence did not oppose the application.
    Justice Okon Abang adjourned the matter until June 19 to June 22 for continuation of trial.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Badeh is standing trial over alleged abuse of office by diverting N3.97billion meant for arms purchase.

     

  • Witnesses’ absence stalls Saraki’s false asset declaration trial

    Witnesses’ absence stalls Saraki’s false asset declaration trial

    The absence of prosecution witnesses on Thursday in Abuja at the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) again stalled the trial of Senate President Bukola Saraki.

    The senate president is standing trial over alleged false assets declaration while serving as governor of Kwara.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the trial had suffered similar fate between April 18 and April 25.

    Both adjournments, however, were at the instance of the prosecution team.

    Saraki’s trial which began in September 2015 had suffered numerous setbacks, mostly at the instance of the prosecution.

    NAN recalls that the prosecution shortlisted eight witnesses who would testify against the senate president in the 13- count charge of alleged false assets declaration.

    Those to testify are Yahaya Bello, Michael Wetkas, Mustapha Musa, Nura Bako, Adamu Garba, Samuel Madojemu, Abdulrahaman Dauda and Nwachukwu Amazu.

    Some of the witnesses were said to be DSS operators who investigated the four forms submitted to the Code of Conduct Bureau by Saraki.

    The prosecutor, Mr Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) had asked for short adjournment to enable him produce his witnesses.

    The Chairman of the tribunal, Justice Danladi Umar adjourned the matter till May 4 for continuation.

  • Allegations against me at CCT made ‘no sense’- Saraki

    Allegations against me at CCT made ‘no sense’- Saraki

    The Federal Government on Thursday re-arraigned Senate President, Bukola Saraki, on an 18-count amended charge over false asset declaration and money laundering at the Code of Conduct Tribunal in Abuja.

    The Prosecution team, led by Mr Rotimi Jacobs, filed the amended charge on Feb. 8 after the trial had gone underway with a number of prosecution witnesses testifying.

    Saraki was initially standing trial on a 13-count charge for alleged false asset declaration at the tribunal.

    The trial, which started in September 2015, was later amended in 2016, with an addition of three charges, making it 16-count.

    The Chairman of the tribunal, Mr Umar Danladi, held that the court was compelled to give a short adjournment for the defendant’s team to study the new charge.

    The matter was then adjourned until Feb. 23 for the defendant to take his fresh plea.

    At the resumption of the trial, Saraki made his plea, where he denied all the allegations in the charge.

    He said his trial was politically-motivated, adding that the allegations included in the charge made “no sense” to him.

    Saraki’s plea was immediately followed by the testimony of a prosecution witness, Mr Samuel Madojemu.

    Madojemu, an official of the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB), had earlier given evidence on Feb. 8.

    He insisted that Saraki failed to capture his properties at No. 15a and 17a Macdonald street, Ikoyi, Lagos in the asset declaration form.

    The witness said most of the documents tendered as exhibits were obtained by EFCC operatives and validated by the bureau.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the amended charge also borders around false assets declaration and money laundering between 2003 and 2011 when the defendant was governor of Kwara.

    Meanwhile, the presiding judge had adjourned trial until March 2. (NAN)

  • Saraki lacks moral right to query CCT Chair’s integrity – FG

    Saraki lacks moral right to query CCT Chair’s integrity – FG

    The Federal Government Wednesday queried the moral right of the Senate President in calling on the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), Danladi Umar to disqualify himself from his (Saraki’s) trial for false asset declaration.

    Lead prosecution lawyer, Rotimi Jacobs said it was laughable that Saraki, who is currently being tried, will chose to hold on to office as a Senator and Senator President, but demand that Umar, who was merely investigated and had since been freed, to vacate office.

    “This motion is absurd. The defendant (Saraki), who has been charged to court, is still performing his statutory duty as a senator, but he is saying that the Constitution guarantees him presumption of innocence.

    “He is saying that he remains a senator. He is saying that he will continue to be Senate President and he will continue to perform his duties. But he is saying that your lordship (Umar), who was merely investigated, should not be allowed to enjoy the presumption of innocence and that your lordship should not be allowed to continue to perform his duties.

    “Your lordship has not been charged before any court. No charge has been filed against your lordship. That is the absurdity in their motion. This application is only filed to achieve one purpose; to embarrass the tribunal,” Jacobs said while responding to a motion by Saraki, asking the tribunal Chairman to disqualify himself from the trial on the ground that he was investigated for bribery allegation.

    Jacobs said the motion was filed to malign the tribunal chairman, adding that the investigation of the bribery allegation had been concluded and the person found to be culpable had since last year been charged to court by the EFCC.

    “If investigation has been concluded and someone is already facing trial, will the defendant be right to say that the tribunal chairman is involved in on-going investigation. He cannot be right. The investigation has been concluded since March 2015.

    “This is stated in our counter-affidavit which was never challenged. That is what led to the charge he referred to. The person on trial is the only one recommend for prosecution.

    “The letter did not recommend your lordship for prosecution. That is not what the letter says. The letter clearly stated with overwhelming evidence the person to be prosecuted. We should fear God, we are counsel,” Jacobs said.

    He noted that contrary to Saraki’s claim, the EFCC was not a party to the case, but that it was the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) that issued him (Jacobs) the fiat to prosecute the defendant.

    He insisted that the case was filed through the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) and not the EFCC as claimed by Oluyede.

    He said by virtue of section 349(7), of Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, Saraki’s lawyer, Ajibola Oluyede could not have validly file the motion without the  consent of the lead defence lawyer, Kanu Agabi (SAN) who was still in the case.

    He reminded the tribunal that the issue of who filed the charges against Saraki, had been argued by Agabi in a motion challenging the tribunal’s jurisdiction.

    Jacobs said the issue had become part of the subjects of appeal filed by Agabi against the tribunal’s ruling and urged the judge not to make findings on it in order not to run foul of usurping the duties of the appeal court.

    Earlier, Oluyede, while moving the motion, insisted that Umar must disqualify himself from the trial. He argued that the June 24, 2014 letter by the then EFCC chairman, Mr. Ibrahim Lamorde and which was dated addressed to the then AGF, Bello Adoke, did not exonerate him of the bribery allegation.

    Oluyede contended that the then AGF had directed the EFCC to proceed to prosecute the tribunal chairman and the other suspects. He added that the other report of investigation issued in March 2015 did not also clear the tribunal chairman.

    Oluyede said it would require the AGF office to issue another letter overriding the earlier directive to the EFCC to go ahead with the prosecution of Umar and his co-suspect, before the tribunal chairman could be said to have been cleared.

    He insisted that in as much as there was no fresh letter by the AGF expressly stating that Umar had been cleared of the allegation, “the legitimacy of the proceedings (Saraki’s trial) is in question”.

    On claim by Jacobs that Agabi was not part of the motion, Oluyede noted that “Paragraph 15 of the further affidavit confirms that it was, in fact the lead counsel, Agabi,that advised the defendant to bring this application before the tribunal in the interest of justice.

    “The submission of counsel, no matter how esteem that counsel is, does not and is not allowed to be considered as constituting evidence.

    “Even if it was true that the lead counsel was not aware or did not even consent or approve it for reasons of conflict, it is immaterial because any counsel that is briefed by a party to a proceeding is entitled to act in accordance to the instruction of his client,” Oluyede said.

    Before Oluyede moved the motion, Agabi excused himself from the proceedings.

    He appealed to parties in the case, including the tribunal members to allow peace to reign.

    As against the claim by Oluyede, Agabi, before exiting the proceedings, admitted that he only became aware of the motion after Oluyede had filed it. Agabi said he had no problem with the motion, being moved on behalf of the defence team.

    Shortly after Oluyede moved his motion, Umar said he has been cleared of the allegation by both the EFCC and the AGF.

    He recalled that upon a petition filed against him before the House of Representatives over the bribery allegation, the AGF (Malami) appeared before a committee of the House and told the members of the committee that he (Umar) had been cleared.

    Umar said, “A group called Anti-Corruption Network wrote a petition against me at the House of Representatives.

    “The House committee invited me and I went there three times but the petitioner did not come. The committee asked me what I think should be done and I said, if it were to be court, when the person who filed a case refuses to come, the court will strike it out. But the chairman said, let’s give them another time.

    “Why did he not strike it out and decided to continue to wait for the petitioner? I went there just because of the respect I have for the institution. I am a law abiding citizen. That is why I went there three times, abandoning all my works here.

    “They invited the AGF. He went with a copy of the letter of EFCC and he said by virtue of that letter, nobody could compel him to prosecute me on the basis of that letter, which stated that the allegation was based on mere suspicion.

    “On the basis of that, he (the AGF) said he will not prosecute me. As the chief law officer, he decides who to prosecute and when to stop to prosecute anybody.”

    The tribunal will rule Thursday on the motion.