Tag: Saraki’s

The trial of Senate President Bukola Saraki for false asset declaration continued yesterday with the prosecution witness insisting that the defendant lied in the asset declaration form he submitted to the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) in 2003.

The witness, Michael Wetkas, who had been subjected to over seven days of intense drilling in cross-examination by the defence team, insisted that Saraki made anticipatory asset declaration in 2003 in respect of some landed property he allegedly acquired in 2006 in Ikoyi, Lagos.

Wetkas, a detective with the Economic and Financial Commission (EFCC) had been differently subjected to cross examination by many senior lawyers recruited by Saraki, inluding former Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Kanu Agabi (SAN), Paul Usoro (SAN) an Paul Erokoro (SAN), but he has been consistent that investigation revealed that Saraki made false asset declaration.

Yesterday, while again, being cross-examined by Usoro, Wetkas said his investigation team relied on information provided by the Presidential Implementation Committee on the Allienation of Federal Government Properties which sold off the property in question on behalf of the Federal Government in 2006.

Wetkas said the presidential committee informed his team that it did not have on its record, 15 A and B, Mcdonald Road, Ikoyi, Lagos, as declared by Saraki in his 2003 asset declaration form.

He said contrary to Saraki’s claim, the committee identified the property it sold as No.15, and Block 15, Flat 1 to 4, Mcdonald Road, Ikoyi, Lagos.

Wetkas noted that, Saraki, on assuming office as Kwara State governor in 2003, declared that he acquired 15A and B, Mcdonald Road, Ikoyi, Lagos in 2000, whereas, the presidential committee wrote to his investigative team that it sold 15, Mcdonald Road, Ikoyi, Lagos to Saraki through his company, Tiny Tee Limited, in 2006.

“The only authority that we could refer to was the presidential committee or the Lagos State Land Registry or the Presidential Implementation Committee. The other letters referred to by them (Saraki’s lawyers) were by private individuals.

“We relied on the document from the Presidential Implementation Committee which said they only had 15, Mcdonald Road and Block 15, Flat 1 to 4, Mcdonald Road, Ikoyi, Lagos, which was occupied by another lessee.

“We relied on the numbering of the properties by the presidential implementation committee and they stated that 15, Mcdonald Road, Ikoyi was sold to Tiny-Tee. That was the strength of our conclusion,” the witness said.

Wetkas said he did not physically inspect the property at 15, 15A and B, Mcdonald Road, Ikoyi, but that other members of his investigative team did, and that they are in a better position to tell the tribunal what they found.

On why he did not personally visit Mcdonald Road, Ikoyi, Wetkas said he needed not to because the letter from the Presidential Implementation Committee to his team had clarified issues on the existence or otherwise of the property.

“There was no need for me to ask the implementation committee to take me to the properties. The letter clarified that there were only two properties as 15 and Block 15, Flats 1 to 4,” the witness said.

Wetkas confirmed that the asset at 15, Mcdonald Road, Ikoyi, was at various times offered to a company, Energy Marine Resources and occupant of the house, Mr. Virtus Nwosu.

The witness also confirmed that it was eventually sold to Saraki’s company.

Usoro confronted Wetkas with documents on the property which were obtained from the presidential committee and tendered as exhibits, to fault the prosecution’s case.

The lawyer said the property described as 15 A and B, Mcdonald Road, Ikoyi, in Saraki’s asset declaration form of assumption of office in 2003, was not the same as the one described as 15, Mcdonald Road, Ikoyi, by the presidential committee.

Usoro noted that the property as described by the presidential committee was also not the same described by Saraki in his asset declaration form of July 11, 2007, made after the Senate President ended his first term in office as governor.

Saraki’s asset declaration form which he submitted on assumption of office in 2003 (Exhibit 3), did not give a picture of the property he claimed to have on 15A and B, Mcdonald Road, Ikoyi, but the form he submitted on July 11, 2007 after he completed his first term as governor described 15A as a five-bedroom house and 15B as an undeveloped plot.

A different document, identified by Usoro as Exhibit 14 – a report of the EFCC on Saraki’s assets in 2006 – provided a different description of the property.

On the request by Usoro, Wetkas read from the document, to the effect that the property identified as 15A and B Mcdonald, Ikoyi were verified. “While the property at 15A is a big one, painted and fenced, the other one at 15 is unpainted and lacks character, although it is also fenced. The properties are residential and belong to the declarant (Saraki).”

In yet a different document, which Usoro again, asked Wetkas to read, 15 Mcdonald, was described as a four-bedroom house.

Wetkas confirmed that none of those descriptions fitted in with the description of 15 A and B Mcdnald in Exhibit 3, which was the end of tenure asset declaration form made by Saraki in 2007

He insisted “they are not the same but that is immaterial to me. My understanding is that when you buy a property you can expand it.”

Usoro disagreed, insisting that 15B described as an undeveloped plot in Exhibit 3 could never have been such property that was later expanded after it was purchased.

Further hearing has been fixed for May 17.

Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) Chairman Danladi Umar yesterday pulled the brakes on Senate President Bukola Saraki’s motion querying his integrity and urging him to disqualify himself from presiding over his trial.

Justice Umar described the motion, filed for Saraki by a lawyer, Ajibola Oluyede, as “rubbish, unmeritorious and a distraction”.  He described Oluyede as a busy-body, who was a stranger to the proceedings.

Saraki filed the motion on Wednesday, questioning Justice Umar’s integrity and demanding his withdrawal from his (Saraki’s) trial for alleged false assets declaration.

He claimed that Justice Umar was being investigated by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and that he was likely to be manipulated by the EFCC to arrive at a decision favourable to the prosecution.

At the opening of proceedings yesterday, Adebayo Adelodun (SAN), who led the defence team, yielded ground for Oluyede to introduce his motion. Oluyede said the motion contained reliefs, including one for an order asking Justice Umar to disqualify himself from further presiding over the case on the grounds that he was being investigated for bribery.

Lead prosecution lawyer Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), interjected and said the application had not received the approval of the lead defence lawyer, Kanu Agabi (SAN), who was absent at the proceedings.

Jacobs noted that Oluyede was not yet a lawyer in the case, because as at when he (Oluyede) filed the motion yesterday, he was yet to be recognised as a member of the defence team.

Jacobs insisted on responding to the motion only if Agabi acknowledged its existence.

At that point, Justice Umar passed a copy of a letter from the EFCC, absolving him of all issues relating to the bribery allegation on which Oluyede’s motion was predicated.

Justice Umar noted that Oluyede filed similar application before the Federal High Court, Abuja in a fundamental rights suit, which Justice Adamu Abdu Kafarati dismissed last Friday as being unmeritorious and constituting an abuse of the court’s process.

“As far as this tribunal is concerned, this application (motion) has not been filed. It is rubbish and it is hereby thrown out,” Justice Umar declared.

He directed Oluyede to sit down to enable the tribunal proceed with the business of the day, which was the continuation of the cross-examination of the first prosecution witness, Michael Wetkas.

Oluyede ignored Justice Umar’s directive, insisting that he will proceed with his motion. He accused Justice Umar of having “too many cloudy relationships with the EFCC”, adding that “this is part of the reasons we asked you to excuse yourself.”

Justice Umar interrupted him, threatening to commit the lawyer to prison should he persist to insult the tribunal. Oluyede refused to sit down and attempted to proceed with his argument, but Justice Umar ordered the police orderlies in court to take the lawyer away.

The policemen were reluctant to carry out Justice Umar’ directive, following which Jacobs intervened and appealed for calm.

Jacobs urged Justice Umar to be patient, noting that the EFCC had since March 15 cleared him (Justice Umar) of the allegations, before the charge against Saraki was filed in September 2015.

“My lord, be patient, we will handle the application as we effectively did at the Federal High Court. We will expose the frivolity of the application even to the person who filed it,” Jacobs said.

When peace returned,  another member of Saraki’s defence team, Paul Usoro (SAN), strolled into the tribunal’s sitting and, without referring to the hot exchanges between Justice  Umar and Oluyede, sought to continue with the business of the day, which was the cross-examination of Wettkas.

The tribunal Chairman granted Usoro’ request and allowed the resumption of the witness’ cross-examination by the defence team.

Meanwhile, the prosecution has amended the charge,  raising the counts from13 to 15.

In the new count 14, Saraki is accused of making false declaration in the assets declaration form he  filled 2003 as governor of Kwara State “by your failure to declare your leasehold interest in number 42, Remi Fani Kayode Street, Ikeja, Lagos, which you acquired through your company, Skyview Properties Limited from First Finance Trust Limited on December 12, 1996 and you thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 15(1)(2) of the CCB/T Act. CAP. C15, laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and as incorporated under paragraph 11(1)(2),I Fifth Schedule to the 1999 (as amended) and punishable under Section 23(2) of the CCB/CCT Act as incorporated under paragraph 18, Part I of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution.

 of the federal republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).”

The new count 15 accuse Saraki of receiving monthly salary/emoluments between June 2011 and October 2013 “as governor of Kwara State and at the same time, from the Federal Government as a Senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and you thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 6(a) of the CCB/T Act, CAP. C15, laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and as incorporated under paragraph 2(a), Part I of the, Fifth Schedule to the Constitution and punishable under section 23(2) of the CCB/T Act as incorporated under paragraph 18, Part I of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution.”

Under cross examination by Usoro, Wetkas insisted that investigation by his team revealed that Saraki operated an offshore account while in public office.

When told the credit card with which the defendant allegedly made the foreign transactions  were not issued by a bank, Wetkas said although he did not have a credit card and have not seen any, he was convinced that it was similar to a bank account in its operation.

“From the narrations of the foreign transfers, the destination was to American Express Bank, Europe. GTB (Guaranty Trust Bank) by its letter dated April 1, 2014 forwarded a certified true copy (CTC) of the instruments for processing the transactions in relation to Count 12 of the charge to us,” he said.

On whether the investigators invited Saraki for interview, the witness said “as at the time the CCB officials were involved in the investigation, the defendant was not invited for interview”.

“As at the time of analysing the asset declaration forms, the American Express Bank card was also not declared.

“I am stating as a fact that the American Express Bank card is similar to an account, because an account represents the existence of a relationship between a bank and a customer, which is represented by number, from which you can pay in or spend money in conducting transaction.

“This card is also a form of relationship between the bank and a customer or any financial institution and a customer. It is also identified by a reference number, which is distinct to that particular customer, which can also allow you to pay in money or spend money in a transaction,” he said

When asked if he knew that Harrolds issue credit cards, Wetkas said he did not know.

The tribunal chairman rejected an application for a one week adjournment made by Agabi, who said it would enable the defence to examine the amended charge and other documents already tendered by the prosecution.

In a ruling, Justice Umar agreed to allow the defence sufficient time to prepare. He adjourned till April 27 for continuation of cross-examination.

The absence of Justice Abdulkadir Abdulkafarati of the Federal High Court, Abuja, stalled proceedings yesterday in a suit by Senate President, Bukola Saraki, for an order stopping the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) from trying him.

The judge was to conduct proceedings in the substantive suit yesterday, having refused Saraki’s application for an interim injunction to stop the trial.

 Yesterday, parties were told the judge was not available and that the court would not sit.

The suit was filed in Abuja in November by Saraki’s lawyer Raphael Oluyede shortly after Justice Ibrahim Buba of the Lagos division struck out the suit, saying he lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.

Justice Buba, on November 6, said his court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the case. He added that it ought to have been filed in Abuja where the action took place. The judge noted that Saraki could not prove that his rights were about to be violated in Lagos.

“He has to proffer the reason for the court to hold that his right is about to be violated in Lagos State. The key word is ‘state,” Justice Buba said.

This suit is the third of such suits filed before the Federal High Court by Saraki. Justice Ahmed Ramat Mohammed, before who the first suit was filed, withdrew on September 30 and returned the case file to the Chief Judge, Justice Ibrahim Auta.

As is the case in the fresh suit, Saraki sought to restrain the CCT, Federal Ministry of Justice and others from proceeding with his trial on the alleged false asset declaration charge against.

Justice Mohammed declined, on September 17, to grant Saraki’s prayer for an order restraining the respondents. Saraki had applied for the order via an ex-parte motion.

Instead, the judge ordered that the respondents be put on notice and show cause on September 21, why Saraki’s prayer should not be granted.

On September 21, the judge, after arguments from parties, elected to hear the substantive suit. When parties returned to court on September 30, Justice Mohammed announced his withdrawal from the case  following publications in the social media, which portrayed him compromised.

He said the publications cast doubt in his integrity as a judge in the case, which will make parties to doubt his intention, whichever position he took.

Justice Mohammed said it was more honourable for him to hand the case file to the chief judge for reassignment.

It is not clear why Saraki filed the fresh suit since the Supreme Court, where his appeal against the CCT’s decision to assume jurisdiction over his trial was still pending, has directed the CCT to suspend proceedings in the trial of Senate President pending the determination of his appeal.

The Supreme Court has fixed judgment in the case for February 5.