The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Tarfa

  • Drama at Tarfa’s trial for perversion of justice

    There was a mild drama at the Thursday trial of a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Rickey Tarfa, as counsels engaged in a shouting match and stalled the trial.

    Tarfa is standing trial before Justice Aisha Opesanwo for alleged perversion of justice preferred against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

    He was arraigned on a three-count charge of obstruction of justice and perverting the cause of justice.

    The drama ensued at the resumed sitting of the court when the defence team led by Abiodun Owonikoko (SAN) was about to open its defence on the matter following the dismissal of a no case submission filed on March 5.

    Owonikoko had insisted that the court must make available to him, the official records of the case proceedings before he starts his defence.

    The counsel told the court that he needed the record of the proceedings before he could proceed with his client’s defence.

    He claimed to have made a formal application for the court documents but that has not been granted.

    He said: “Our point of reference is that we have a pending application for the record of proceedings.

    “We made an appeal during the last hearing for the record of proceedings and we have not yet received it.

    “We have been applying now for two years. We need it for our defence. The records we need are the record of the court and not of my colleagues.

    “It is scandalous that we are doing a trial of this nature and we have no record of proceedings.”

    In his response, the prosecuting counsel, Mr. G.K. Latona, told the court that he found Owonikoko’s request unusual.

    “I find the observation of the learned silk strange, a record of proceedings was used copiously in their no case submission,” he said.

    Following Latona’s response, a shouting match ensued between the duo, with both men threatening each other.

    The incident forced Justice Aisat Opesanwo to adjourn the trial.

  • EFCC urges court to disregard Tarfa’s application to quash bribery charge

    EFCC urges court to disregard Tarfa’s application to quash bribery charge

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) yesterday told a Lagos High Court in Igbosere that the embattled Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Rickey Tarfa, lacked the right to challenge the prosecutorial powers of the agency.

    The commission made the submission while opposing the application to quash the charge against Tarfa.

    Tarfa, was arraigned on March 9, by the EFCC on a 27-count charge bordering on ýrefusal to declare assets, making false statement, offering gratification to public officer, failure to declare his assets in the Assets Declaration Form.

    The SAN had through his counsel, Mr Anthony Idigbe, filed an application seeking to quash the charge against him.

    At the resumed hearing yesterday, Idigbe told the court that it was against the rule of law for the EFCC to be the complainant, the investigator and prosecutor in a case.

    “We submit that this is contrary to natural justice, equity and good science.

    “This is also in breach of section 36 of the constitution which requires that every citizen should have fair hearing in order to guarantee independence and impartiality in every proceedings.

    “The procedure that such charge should get the Directorate of Public Prosecution’s advice was not followed. This presents a glaring threat to the rights of citizens under Section 36 of the Constitution”. he said.

    Idigbe also stated that Sections 172 and 209 of the Constitution made provision for compulsory declaration of assets by public official, however, the accused was not a public officer, therefore the charge should not be sustained.

    Responding to the application, the EFCC filed a 12 paragraph counter-affidavit sworn to by one Moses Awolusi, an officer of the agency, and a written address.

    The EFCC counsel urged the court to dismiss all the prayers of the applicant and cited some authorities to back his submission.

    He said that section 27 of the EFCC Act empowered the agency to investigate and prosecute the accused for the alleged offences.

    Oyedepo also said that the action of the anti-graft agency was not in contravention of Section 212 of the Constitution as amended.

    He also said that the agency did not need the fiat of Lagos Attorney General before prosecuting the accused because the agency was an independent commission that could investigate and prosecute any offence related to economic and financial crimes.

    On the issue of declaration of assets, Oyedepo said Tarfa was investigated for offering gratification to public officer, therefore, the act imposed a duty on him to declare his assets.

    After the argument, Justice A. A. Akintoye, adjourned the case till April 22 for ruling on the application. (NAN)

  • Tarfa in fresh bid to stop EFCC’s 27-count charge

    A Lagos State High Court sitting in Igbosere  yesterday  adjourned hearing in an application by a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Rickey Tarfa, seeking to quash a 27-count filed against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

    Tarfa was arraigned on March 9 before Justice A. A. Akintoye on charges, including refusal to declare his assets, making false statements, offering gratification to a public officer and failure to declare his assets in the Assets Declaration Form.

    This suit is different from a two-count of obstructing officers of the law from carrying out their duties and attempting to pervert justice, also filed against him by the EFCC, but before Justice Aishat Opesanwo.

    At the resumed hearing  yesterday, EFCC Prosecutor Mr Rotimi Oyedepo reminded the court that the case was for trial.

    But the defendant’s counsel, Mr Nnaemeka Ngige, told the court that he had filed an application seeking to quash the charges.

    He said he had served the prosecutor with the application but only received the counter-affidavit to the application 20 minutes earlier.

    Ngige urged the court to adjourn to enable him respond to the counter-affidavit.

    Justice Akintoye upheld his submission and adjourned the case till April 15.

    The prosecutor had told the court that on February 10 after his arrest, Tarfa failed to declare his assets in the declaration of assets form issued to him by the agency.

    Oyedepo said the defendant also made a false statement on February 5 to Usman Zakari, a senior detective officer with EFCC, by claiming he was 43 years old.

    He also alleged that several payments were made by the defendant to two judges either to induce them to act in the exercise of their official duties or to persuade them to refrain from acting in the exercise of their official duties.

    The allegations are as follows:

    That on June 27, 2012, Tarfa internationally gave N1.5 million and N500, 000.00 to Justice Nganjiwa Hyeladzira Ajiya of the Federal High Court in Lagos, directly from his Zenith Bank Account No. 1002926967.

    That on August 6, 2013, the defendant intentionally gave N500, 000.00 to Justice Nganjiwa Hyeladzira Ajiya of the Federal High Court directly from his Zenith Bank Account.

    That on January 29, 2014, the defendant intentionally gave the judge N1.5 million.

    That on October 3, 2014, Tarfa gave the judge N835, 000.00.

    That on December 22, 2014, he intentionally gave the judge N500, 000.00.

    That on October 27, 2015, the defendant intentionally gave N1.5 million to Justice Nganjiwa Hyeladzira Ajiya of the Federal High Court by directly depositing the money into Awa Ajia Nigeria Ltd’s account No. 0000971931 domicilled in Access Bank Plc, belonging to the judge.

    That on December 30, 2015, the defendant gave the judge N500, 000.00 by directly depositing the money into the account of the judge.

    The defendant was also alleged to have given N200, 000.00 to Justice Mohammed Nasir Yunusa of the Federal High Court in Lagos, through Awa Ajia Nigeria Ltd’s account No 0000971931 domicilled in Access Bank Plc, belonging to Justice Nganjiwa Hyeladzira Ajiya, on November 30, 2015.

    The accused pleaded not guilty and was granted bail on self recognisance.

  • Tarfa explains relationship with judge 

    Tarfa explains relationship with judge 

    A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Rickey Tarfa, has denied bribing a judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Hyeladzira Ajiya Nganjiwa, with N5.3million.

    He said he read about the allegation in the media and has not been served with a fresh charge.

    Explaining his relationship with the judge, Tarfa said before being appointed to the Bench, Justice Nganjiwa was absorbed into his firm in 1995 immediately after leaving the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) where he rose to the position of Deputy Director (Prosecution).

    Tarfa said Nganjiwa was with his law firm until he was appointed to the Federal High Court in 2012.

    The senior advocate, in a statement  by his Head of Chamber, Mr. John Odubela, said Nganjiwa, who specialised in criminal law, attracted many briefs/clients because of his expertise.

    Tarfa said upon his appointment as a judge, the law firm continued with the cases he brought to the chambers.

    “In the light of the above, we have continued to discharge the firm’s financial obligations to him in respect of cases he has handled for the firm as a practicing legal practitioner in our law firm and those he brought to the chambers,” the statement said.

    Tarfa accused the EFCC of persecution, describing 27 count charge filed against him as ridiculous.

    “We have cause to once more react to the malicious trial by media of our Rickey Tarfa (SAN) by the EFCC. Trials are never won on the pages of newspapers, the airwaves and on online platforms.

    “The recent 27 count charge allegedly filed against Tarfa by EFCC is not only laughable because as at the time of issuing this press statement, Tarfa is yet to be served with the charge. The media is, however, awash with ‘details’ of the said charge.”

    On the allegation of the falsification of age, the statement said Tarfa always marked his birthdays publicly and has no reason to lie about his age.

    “For the umpteenth time, we as a law firm, assure all our clients and members of the public that we are law abiding and would never be involved in any act in contravention of the law of the country.

    “We restate that we appreciate the goodwill, support from colleagues, friends, clients and lovers of human rights, through calls, text messages and personal visits since this persecution commenced and pledge that the 28 year old firm of RickeyTarfa& Co. will continue to practice its trade in the best traditions of the bar.”

     

  • Tarfa paid another judge N5.3m in two years, says EFCC

    Tarfa paid another judge N5.3m in two years, says EFCC

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has alleged that a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Rickey Tarfa, paid a judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Hyeladzira Ajiya Nganjiwa, N5.3 million between June 27, 2012 and December 23, 2014.

    The commission said it uncovered a “network of collaboration and illicit transfer of funds” between Tarfa, Justice Nganjiwa and Justice Mohammed Yunusa, who EFCC also alleged Tarfa bribed with N225,000.

    EFCC said Tarfa paid N5,335,000 to Justice Nganjiwa’s account with Fidelity Bank Plc.

    It said Justice Nganjiwa transferred N1.6 million to Justice Yunusa through a UBA Plc account, 1005055617.

    EFCC said it discovered that Justice Nganjiwa sent bank details of his company, Awa Ajia Nigeria Limited, to Tarfa, adding that the company was incorporated in 2006, with Access Bank account, 0000971931.

    The commission said Tarfa was a referee to Awa Ajia’s account, through which money was transferred to Justice Yunusa’s UBA account.

    These allegations are contained in a counter-affidavit in opposition to a further and better affidavit sworn to by a lawyer, Mohammed Awwal Yunusa, in support of Tarfa’s suit.

    The lawyer swore that the account number which EFCC claimed Tarfa used in bribing Justice Yunusa belonged to him (the lawyer), not the judge.

    At yesterday’s hearing, Tarfa’s lawyer, Chief Bolaji Ayorinde (SAN), said EFCC was wrong by asserting that a lawyer’s bank account belonged to a judge.

    He said the commission ought to admit its mistake when it discovered that it made a “fundamental error”.

    “They should give in and apologise to the applicant,” Ayorinde said.

    The senior advocate said EFCC was making “scandalous” allegations against judges instead of addressing the fundamental rights suit filed by Tarfa.

    Besides, he said the gift Tarfa admitted giving to Justice Yunusa did not violate the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers.

    He referred to Rule 3 (f) (2) (i) of the Code, which says in part: “A judicial officer is, however, permitted to accept personal gifts or benefits from relatives or personal friends to such extent and on such occasion as are recognised by custom.”

    But EFCC’s lawyer Wahab Shittu urged the court to dismiss Tarfa’s suit. He said EFCC did not set out to arrest Tarfa, if not that he prevented a federal agency from performing its statutory functions.

    “We arrested him because he invited us to arrest him. How can you say your arrest was unlawful when you are facing trial?” Shittu asked, referring to the charge against Tarfa at the Lagos State High Court.

    He said Tarfa was granted administrative bail the same day he was arrested and could have gone home had he fulfilled the conditions.

    On the SAN’s seized vehicle, Shittu said: “That was the vehicle he used in shielding the suspects. The car has become an exhibit, which we will tender in court.”

    Shittu said Tarfa, for about five hours, prevented EFCC operatives from arresting his clients when he could have applied for their release on bail or applied to the court to compel the commission to free them.

    “If he (Tarfa) was not arrested, EFCC would be sending a message that he is above the law. The law exists for both the rich and the poor,” Shittu said.

    The EFCC lawyer argued that if anyone should say sorry, it should be Tarfa, who should apologise to the commission and to Nigerians for preventing the suspects’ arrest.

    Shittu urged the court to refuse Tarfa’s demand for N2.5 billion damages. “Because he is used to such donations, he wants the court to donate N2.5 billion to him,” Shittu said.

    In its counter-affidavit, EFCC said the payment received by Mohammed Awwal is “completely different” from the N225,000, which Tarfa admitted giving to Justice Yunusa.

    Shittu said by dismissing Tarfa’s suit, the court would be “sending a message that no matter how high or big you are, the law is bigger”.

    Tarfa sued EFCC; its Chairman, Ibrahim Magu; Moses Awolusi, who arrested Tarfa, and Deputy Director of Operations in EFCC’s Lagos Office Iliyasu Kwarbai for allegedly violating his rights after being arrested for hiding two suspects; Nazaire Sorou Gnanhoue and Modeste Finagnon – both Beninoise – in his Mercedes Benz Sports Utility (SUV) vehicle.

    Tarfa demanded N2.5 billion, and sought an order of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents and their agents from further violating his rights.

    He asked for N20 million as cost and demaded an apology from the respondents, among others.

    Justice Mohammed Idris adjourned till March 15 for judgment.

  • EFCC says Tarfa lied about bribing judge

    EFCC says Tarfa lied about bribing judge

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) yesterday opposed a move by a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Rickey Tarfa, to reopen hearing in his N2.5 billion fundamental rights’ suit and to adduce further evidence.

    Justice Mohammed Idris adjourned until yesterday for judgment, but Tarfa said the new evidence was not available at the time his case was argued.

    The Senior Advocate sued EFCC for allegedly violating his rights after he was arrested for hiding two suspects, Nazaire Sorou Gnanhoue and Modeste Finagnon, both Beninoise, in his Mercedes Benz Sports Utility (SUV) vehicle, thereby shielding them from arrest.

    EFCC Chairman Ibrahim Magu; Moses Awolusi, who arrested Tarfa, and  EFCC’s Deputy Director of Operations, Lagos Office Iliyasu Kwarbai are the respondents.

    Tarfa demanded N2.5 billion and sought an order of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents and their agents from further violating his rights.

    He asked for N20 million as cost, among others.

    Tarfa’s lawyer Bolaji Ayorinde (SAN), who led five other SANs; Oluyele Delano, Abiodun Owonikoko, Dr Muiz Banire, Sylva Ogwemoh and Uche Obi, as well as 10 lawyers, urged the court to allow the use of the further and better affidavit.

    Ayorinde said the new affidavit was deposed to by a lawyer, Mohammed Awwal Yunusa, who swore that the bank account said to be owned by Justice Mohammed Yunusa, through which Tarfa allegedly paid the judge N225,000, belonged to the lawyer and not the judge.

    The Senior Advocate said the money contributed by some lawyers for Justice Yunusa when he was bereaved was different from the one EFCC alleged Tarfa paid into the judge’s account.

    Ayorinde said after admitting that a donation was made to the judge, Tarfa realised that N225,000 was actually given to a lawyer in his firm.

    “This is a court of law, equity and justice. If, this morning, new information comes to us, we have to put it forward. The account they attribute to Justice Yunusa does not belong to him,” he said.

    Ayorinde said Tarfa was not attempting to arrest the judgment. “The evidence was not available as at the time we took the arguments. It behoves your lordship to consider it,” he added.

    But EFCC’s lawyer Wahab Shittu opposed the application, saying it was an after-thought designed to confuse issues and mislead the court.

    He described Tarfa’s claim as “blatant falsehood”, adding that “the facts cannot be twisted or misrepresented in any way whatsoever.”

    Shittu said the court, having reserved judgment, cannot entertain any fresh evidence.

    “The application of the applicant is an abuse of court process and incompetent,” EFCC said in a counter affidavit.

    Besides, Shittu said Tarfa, in his extra-judicial statement to the commission, said he was 43 when his age is 54.

    Shittu said the cheque attached as exhibit in the lawyer’s further and better affidavit was in the name of Mohammed Awwal and not Mohammed Awwal Yunusa.

    He added that the bank did not certify the attached statement, nor was there proof that that the lawyer cashed the cheque.

    “Trying to introduce a fresh evidence at this state will prejudice the respondents. The applicant is denying obvious assertions made before my lord,” he said.

    Shittu said Tarfa was not worthy of being granted the reliefs sought. “The applicant is not truthful and so does not deserve this kind of indulgence,” he said.

    The EFCC lawyer described the application as a bid to arrest the judgment, adding: “Your lordship has a duty to prevent abuse of court. I urge your lordship to refuse the application because he who wants equity must do equity.”

    Replying on points of law, Ayorinde said Tarfa must have written 43 as his age in error due to shock while under detention for three days.

    “If I were in such a situation, being picked up from court and detained for three days, I could write 23 as my age due to shock,” he said.

    In the further and better affidavit, the lawyer, Mohammed Awwal Yunusa, said the account number belongs to him, and not to Justice Yunusa as EFCC alleged in its counter-affidavit to Tarfa’s suit.

    The lawyer said Tarfa gave him N225,000 on January 7, 2014, to help finance his Master’s in Law.

    EFCC alleged that Tarfa paid Justice Yunusa the bribe on January 7, 2014, but the lawyer said he was the one who was paid the money on that date, not the judge.

    He exhibited the Access Bank cheque issued to him by Tarfa, as well as his statement of account issued by the bank’s branch in NNPC Towers Branch, Abuja, with account name: Mohammed A. Yunusa.

    The lawyer, who said he worked in Tarfa’s firm before leaving for his Master’s programme, said he was not related to Justice Yunusa.

    According to him, the firm’s accountant informed him that the cheque issued to him for N225,000 was the only cheque issued by Rickey Tarfa & Co. on January 7, 2014.

    “I hail from Kogi State and I am not in any way related to Justice Mohammed N. Yunusa, neither do I know him personally,” he said.

    Tarfa, in a motion on notice, said the gift to Justice Yunusa does not violate the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers.

    He cited Rule 3 (f) (2) (i) of the code, which says: “A judicial officer is, however, permitted to accept personal gifts or benefits from relatives or personal friends to such extent and on such occasion as are recognised by custom.”

    Justice Idris adjourned until tomorrow for ruling.

  • EFCC, Tarfa, lawyers and journalists

    EFCC, Tarfa, lawyers and journalists

    Incensed by what he alleged was damning evidence of senior lawyer Ricky Tarfa’s consistent pattern of obstructing justice, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) chairman, Ibrahim Magu, lashed out a few days ago at lawyers and journalists who he said had been compromised by corrupt Nigerians. He spoke in general terms. His views, which were expressed when he received a coalition of civil society groups marching in Abuja last week in support of the anti-graft war, need to be quoted extensively to get the full import of his perspective.

    Said he: “One of the big challenges we have in the effective prosecution of the war on corruption is that of very senior lawyers who Nigeria has been very kind to: They who went to good schools here, when Nigeria was good, many of them, on government scholarship; they who Nigeria had given so much opportunity. When we have corruption cases, cases of people who have stolen food from the mouths of our children; when we have cases of people who have stolen money meant to build hospitals and buy drugs; when we have cases of people who have stolen all the money meant to buy guns for our soldiers to fight Boko Haram, when we have all these cases of wicked people who have stolen Nigeria’s money, they run to these same senior lawyers, give them part of the stolen money and mobilise them to fight us, to delay us in court and to deny Nigerians of justice. These are the people who do not want justice for the common man.

    “The other day, 34 Senior Advocates of Nigeria fought against only one small EFCC lawyer in court and he defeated all of them! What we are doing today is not by our power, it is the power of the Nigerian people and the power of God behind us! Corrupt people hire journalists to abuse us every day. They say we are not doing the work according to the law. But, that is not true. There is no agency that follows the law more than EFCC. None. Before we arrest you, or seize your property or do anything to you, we check the law, we go to court and get court order. That is why we are winning; that is why we are defeating them every day.”

    What other kind of support Mr. Magu and the federal government need is hard to understand. They already have approximately more than 95 percent public support. And whether sponsored or not, the protesters who marched in Abuja last week in support of the EFCC gave a clear indication where their hearts belonged. Indeed, the protesters even presumed to represent nearly all Nigerians. A group of lawyers late last week met minds with the EFCC in Lagos and pledged qualified support. Trolling the social media, there is hardly anyone who does not think those accused of corruption should be denied bail, given summary trial and hung by their toes. The media itself is awash with columnists, academicians and analysts who brook no caveat or restraining voice from anyone about the rule of law or any other measure that slows down the anti-graft war. So, why is Mr. Magu still flustered? Could it be the 130 or so lawyers he said had ganged up to undermine the EFCC? Or could it be something more sinister, something closely related to the judiciary headache President Muhammadu Buhari said he had been having since he began the anti-graft war?

    The EFCC boss apparently wants total, unflinching support, the kind that glosses over what some people have described as controversial anti-graft measures, both legal and illegal, in order to bring the corrupt to book. Mr. Magu can’t seem to understand why anyone would give the impression that the anti-graft war is not really a war, a war that strikes at the heart of the nation’s survival, one that calls for very drastic and even unorthodox remedies. Though he boasts of adhering strictly to the rule of law, it is ironical that he deplores both those who get paid to defend the corrupt and those who write to compel the government and the anti-graft bodies to follow due process. He even made sarcastic references, with a touch of innuendo, to how and why the media failed to report the detention of Olajide Omokore, the oil mogul held by the EFCC for some three days or more last week.

    Despite his complaints, Mr. Magu can, however, not get the kind of total support he wants. It is part of the criminal justice system that a suspect charged in court must engage the services of a legal counsel. That counsel has to be paid, of course. And if a defendant is unable to afford a counsel, the state often weighs in to bear the burden. The reason, as Mr. Magu must know, is so that through the interplay of prosecution and defence, justice can be served. But sometimes the system fails, the innocent is punished, and the guilty is set free. At other times, the system succeeds in dispensing justice. It is futile to attempt to discourage lawyers from defending suspects charged with crime, without upending the axiom of presumption of innocence. Who can tell whether one day, as former EFCC chairman Nuhu Ribadu discovered, Mr. Magu will not himself many years down the line need the services of a battery of senior lawyers in the face of serious allegations of misconduct slammed against him by a hostile government. If he is worried about corruption in the judiciary or obstruction of justice, as the Ricky Tarfa case appears to indicate, the EFCC, not to talk of many other government agencies, has the resources and powers to expose the crime. The cleansing and reformation required to sanitise governance and ensure that justice is unfettered are desperately needed, and must be a continuing effort.

    Yet, the guilt of a suspect is not established by popular opinion. If a lawyer brilliantly defends his client, he may sometimes secure the suspect’s freedom. To counteract the defence lawyer, the EFCC and Mr. Magu should ensure that prosecution is also brilliantly handled. This is a check and balance system that cannot and must not be abridged. And as for the delays he grumbles about, which President Muhammadu Buhari also complained about in his last trip to Britain, it is counterproductive to pressure the courts to sacrifice thoroughness on the altar of pleasing the prosecuting agency or mollifying the angry public seeking retribution against their tormentors. If Mr. Magu can’t understand this, he should wait until, like former National Security Adviser Sambo Dasuki, he falls out with the government.

    The EFCC boss also suggested that journalists who opposed the government’s prosecutorial methods were hired by corrupt politicians bent on evading justice. The journalists, said he, constantly assailed the anti-graft agencies uncouthly. This view is sadly misplaced. Mr. Magu has nonetheless brought Mr. Tarfa to trial. If the evidence of jurist bribing the EFCC is mustering holds up, the senior lawyer may end up jeopardising his career and freedom. Mr. Magu should in fact feel free to go ahead to expose the hired journalists he glibly talks about. If they are paid to abuse the EFCC and other anti-graft agencies, surely the agency can find one legal or regulatory corollary to deprive them of their liberty. Rather than make wild, general, intimidatory and unsubstantiated allegations, the EFCC boss should name names and charge the offenders in court. After all, no one, except perhaps the camorra of former Nigerian rulers, is above the law.

    Mr. Magu and the Buhari presidency, it must be reiterated, will undermine their own legacies, as Chief Obasanjo has done, if they enthrone a brusque and irregular method of fighting graft, all in the name of fighting corruption. It was embarrassing of President Buhari to declare in Britain his discomfort with the British method of fighting graft, which he described as ‘too thorough, and takes too much time’. But the Nigerian justice system must also be thorough and if necessary take much time. Justice is too sacred and weighty a matter to be subjected, as Mr. Magu appears to be doing, to emotions and scaremongering. Nigerians want justice, but if it should be delivered in the name of Nigerians, it had better be real justice — justice done and seen to be done, with suspects exhausting all avenues of appeal, and defended by the best lawyers they can find money to hire, even if it bankrupts them.

  • Tarfa to pay cost for withdrawing N5b suit against EFCC, Falana

    Tarfa to pay cost for withdrawing N5b suit against EFCC, Falana

    The Federal High Court in Lagos yesterday asked a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mr. Rickey Tarfa, to pay N10,000 each to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), MTN Nigeria Communications and activist-lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) for withdrawing a suit filed against them.

    Tarfa filed the suit for an alleged unauthorised access to his mobile phones, demanding N5 billion for the alleged violation of his right.

    The lawyer, who joined EFCC Chairman Ibrahim Magu and a foreigner Mrs Rashidatou Abdou, will pay N50,000 to the respondents.

    It was the second fundamental rights’ suit Tarfa would file since his arrest for alleged obstruction of justice.

    A lawyer from his chambers, O. Oladele, moved an ex parte application to discontinue the case.

    Tarfa gave no reason for withdrawing the action.

    EFCC lawyers Mr. Wahab Shittu and Rotimi Oyedepo, did not oppose the withdrawal.

    They, however, urged the court to award punitive cost against Tarfa.

     “We have no objection to the discontinuance of the suit but we want the court to award a punitive cost against the applicant; our names have been flying around in major newspapers since yesterday,” Shittu said.

    Oladele argued that the respondents had no right of reply because his application was an ex-parte one.

    Besides, he said Tarfa did not serve the respondents with the suit, therefore they did not suffer any inconvenience or incur expenses to warrant financial compensation.

    But Shittu argued that since the suit was widely reported, the respondents became aware of it.

    Justice Idris struck out the suit and ordered Tarfa to pay the cost of N10, 000 to each of the respondents.

    Tarfa was arrested for allegedly hiding Gnahouse Nazaire and Senoue Modeste in his Mercedes Benz Sports Utility (SUV) vehicle, thereby shielding them from arrest and obstructing justice.

    The two Beninoise were alleged to have fraudulently converted assets of Rana Prestige Nigeria Limited for their use. They are also being investigated for alleged tax evasion.

    Tarfa urged the court to declare that the unauthorised use of his iPhone 6: 08034600000 to call Alhaji Ado in Kaduna on 08061272929, on February 9, while the phone was with Magu and EFCC without any cause or any court order was wrong, illegal and a violation of his right.

    He also prayed the court to hold that the unauthorised access to his bank details, clients’ information, private and confidential information contained in his iPhone 6 and Samsung 6: 08077341616 by EFCC and Magu without a court order was illegal and violated his rights.

    Tarfa asked the court to hold that the unauthorised accessto his call records/call log and forwarding the information to Sahara Reporters and other online news agencies without any cause or court order was unlawful and amounted to a violation of his rights.

    Judgment in Tarfa’s N2.5 billion suit against EFCC will be delivered on Monday.

  • Tarfa Vs EFCC

    Remember Paul Tarfa?  He was the famous colonel, at the height of military rule, who had a rather infamous koboko theory.

    No, the good colonel (as he then was) was no sadist.  He was just pissed by the brash outlawry on Lagos roads, and would have none of such wayward traffic.  His simple solution?  Tan the hide of whoever you caught!  That should put the fear of God in others!

    That gentleman officer now enjoys a hard earned rest after retiring as a General.  But the odyssey of another Tarfa cannot but resonate the koboko theory.

    In his titanic tussle against the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Ricky Tarfa, SAN, taking a N2.5 billion fundamental rights action to whip EFCC in line, is certainly grave and serious business. No less so is EFCC’s sensational counter-affidavit rebutting the learned silk’s averments.  That certainly is a block buster response.

    Is somebody, somewhere, in the two opposing camps, thinking of a legal koboko to whip sense into the other?  Serious claims and counter-claims, there!

    The opening manoeuvre certainly belongs to the SAN and learned company, all 34 of them (excluding the plaintiff), barging in, all learned glory, to institute Tarfa’s suit. He wants the court to compel EFCC to release his two mobile telephone handsets, “deceitfully” seized; release his Mercedes Benz SUV car in EFCC’s custody; write an apology to be published in at least two widely circulated newspapers, broadcast in two TV stations with national reach within 24 hours of securing judgment and publish it also in the social media, with its possibility of going viral.

    Besides, to cure EFCC of its bully tactics and stiff-necked arrogance, the learned silk wanted the court to restrain EFCC from further violating his rights, fork out N20 million to pay his legal fees and, of course, award the princely N2.5 billion as compensation for breaching the liberty of a learned silk of many years standing on lawful duty.

    But EFCC’s counter-blitzkrieg is no less stunning and formidable, with its counter-affidavit dripping with rather damaging allegations.

    The EFCC claims Tarfa obstructed the lawful arrest of two Beniniose, Nazaire Sorou Gnanhoue and Modeste Finagnon, by keeping them in his car, between noon and 5pm, until its fuel ran out; and that the lawyer engaged in illicit text conversation with a judge to allegedly subvert justice. It also alleged the “bribing” of the judge with N225, 000, to which the judge allegedly responded with a text to thank the silk. On those allegations, EFCC averred it would rather hold on to both car and phone, since both were alleged exhibits, until the case was over.

    But besides the instant case, EFCC alleged a pattern suggesting the lawyer had a record of systematic skewing the judicial processes: the lawyer’s chamber allegedly manipulating the court’s registry to hand cases to particular judges, telephone trails of  the lawyer’s instruction to transfer money to “other public officers”, an alleged collection of $500, 000 from a client, “under the pretext that he was going to bribe some officials of EFCC”, an allegation of illicit donations at a book launch to induce the course of justice, and a reported but scoffed recommendation by a judge for the Lagos NBA to discipline the silk for alleged unprofessional practices.

    This is heavy stuff!  Whichever of the parties the koboko smites, EFCC or Tarfa, would stay smitten for a long time, if not forever!

    This is why the court should not only do justice in this case; it must be transparently seen to have done so.

  • Tarfa files fresh N5b suit against EFCC, MTN, Falana

    Tarfa files fresh N5b suit against EFCC, MTN, Falana

    A senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Mr. Rickey Tarfa, has filed a fresh suit at the Federal High Court in Lagos against the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), MTN Nigeria and activist-lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) over an alleged unauthorised access to his mobile phones.

    He is demanding N5 billion for the alleged violation of his right to privacy.

    Tarfa also joined EFCC chairman Ibrahim Magu and a foreigner Mrs. Rashidatou Abdou as respondents.

    It is the second fundamental rights suit Tarfa will file since his arrest for alleged obstruction of justice.

    In the first suit, Tarfa is demanding N2.5 billion from EFCC following his arrest for allegedly hiding Gnahouse Nazaire and Senoue  Modeste in his Mercedes Benz Sports Utility (SUV) vehicle, thereby shielding them from arrest and willfully obstructing the course of justice.

    The two Beninese were alleged to have fraudulently converted Rana Prestige Nigeria Limited’s assets to their use. They are also being investigated for alleged tax evasion.

    In the new suit, Tarfa is praying for an order declaring that the unauthorised act of using his iPhone 6 with mobile number 08034600000 to call one Alhaji Ado in Kaduna on mobile number 08061272929 on February 9 while the phone was with Magu and EFCC without any reasonable cause or any court order is wrongful, illegal and a gross violation of his rights.

    The lawyer said EFCC and Magu also accessed his bank details, clients’ information, private and confidential information contained in his iPhone 6 and Samsung 6 with mobile number 08077341616 without any reasonable cause or any court order.

    He is praying the court to declare that the alleged unauthorised access illegal and to hold that it grossly violated his fundamental rights.

    Tarfa is also asking the court to declare that the unauthorised act of accessing his phones’ call records/call log and forwarding the information to Sahara Reporters and other online news agencies without any reasonable cause, or any court order is unlawful and amounts to a gross violation of his right to privacy.

    Tarfa’s new suit is yet to be assigned to a judge.