Tag: Tompolo

Lawyers representing ex-Niger Delta militant leader Government Ekpemupolo (aka Tompolo) yesterday said they were not obliged to produce their client in court.

Tayo Oyetibo (SAN) and Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa said it was not a defence counsel’s duty to produce an accused in court, but the  prosecution’s.

They referred to Paragraph 3 (b) of the Federal High Court Practice Direction 2013: “On the date of first arraignment, the prosecutor must produce the accused person in court.”

Oyetibo and Adegboruwa, who filed an appeal on Tompolo’s behalf, were reacting to calls that they should produce their client in court or be disciplined by the Bar.

It was suggested that since the lawyers are apparently in touch with Tompolo, who was declared wanted, they should produce him in court.

But the lawyers said Tompolo is entitled to appeal any order made against him, adding that  courts can and have quashed charges without the accused present.

According to them, in the case of Fawehinmi vs Attorney-General of Lagos State (1989), the Court of Appeal held that accused persons could object to the charge even when they were not in court.

“Thus, judges look at the facts of a case and the applicable law, but not sentiments, in deciding cases before them.

“In Ezeugo vs Ohanvere (1978) 6-7 Sc 171, Justice Obaseki of the Supreme Court said: ‘… sentiments command no place in judicial deliberations, for if it did, our task would be infinitely more difficult and less beneficial to the society.’

The lawyers said the notion that their colleagues, who defend persons accused of corruption are aiding graft, is misconceived.

“May the day never come in Nigeria when lawyers would be afraid to take up the defence of persons accused of crime simply because of media backlash or editorial opinions.

“We make bold to assert, with unwavering legal equilibrium, that it is in the best interest of the society that persons accused of even the most heinous of crimes be defended by the best of counsel available to test the veracity of the allegations with a view to ensuring that justice is not only done but seen to have been done.

“After all, it has been said by the Supreme Court that justice is a three-way traffic – for the society, the victim and the accused.”

Embattled former militant leader Chief Government Ekpemupolo has denied issuing an ultimatum to the Federal Government to withdraw troops from the Niger Delta region.

He described reports of the purported deadline as handiwork of his enemies who want to see his end.

A statement by his media aide, Comrade Paul Bebenimibo stated: “It has come to our notice that some mischief makers have made a publication in the name of High Chief Government Ekpemupolo, alias Tompolo, which is trending in the social media, that he has given few days to President Muhammedu Buhari to withdrew military from the Niger Delta region, otherwise he is going to blow up oil pipelines.

“We wish to state categorically that the said publication is not from Tompolo, rather it is the work of those that have sworn to kill him by all means, but Jehovah God forbid.”

The statement insisted Tompolo has stated his resolve to toe the path of peace despite his face-off with security operatives.

He said he  would “ not resort to violence or destroy oil facilities because of the issue he is having with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC.

“ No amount of provocation and persecution can make him to destroy the country that he has helped to build in recent time. He will discretionally continue to pursue his course legally.

“ It is his prayer for those that are pushing for his death to have a re-think as he believes fervently in Jehovah God Who sees the heart of every human being, that he has no evil intention against Nigeria or any individual, therefore he will come out stronger in the face of these temptations and trials.”

A former Niger Delta militant leader, Government Ekpemupolo (aka Tompolo) has appealed the order for his arrest by Justice Ibrahim Buba of the Federal High Court in Lagos.

He is also praying that his case be transferred to another judge for adjudication.

Justice Buba had, on February 8, directed security agencies to arrest Tompolo and held that the warrant of arrest earlier issued for his arrest still subsists.

Dissatisfied, Tompolo appealed. He is praying the appellate court to set aside Justice Buba’s February 8 ruling.

He also sought an order setting aside the order made on January 12 to compel his appearance and for substituted service of the processes on him.

In the Notice of Appeal filed on his behalf by the law firms of Tayo Oyetibo (SAN) and Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, Tompolo said Justice Buba erred in law in refusing to set aside the warrant of arrest issued against him.

He said there was no evidence to show that he had been notified of the summons and the criminal charge pending against him.

Tompolo also complained that the learned judge should have ascertained that the the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) duly complied with the order for substituted service, by posting the charge at the correct address.

The appellant stated further that the application leading to the issuance of the warrant of arrest was not competently placed before the court, as the counsel that signed and filed it on EFCC’s behalf failed to affix his stamp and seal on it.

Tompolo is asking the Court of Appeal to set aside the warrant for his arrest and vacate all subsequent proceedings emanating from the “flawed” process of the criminal charge.

He is further seeking that the charge against him should be transferred from Justice Buba to another judge of the Federal High Court.

In ground one of the appeal, Tompolo said: “The learned trial Judge erred in law and violated the appellant’s right to a fair hearing as guaranteed by section 36(6)(b) of the 1999 Constitution when he refused to set aside the aarrant for the arrest of the appellant which was issued on 14 January,2016 pursuant to section 131 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 when Summons to appear in court and the Criminal Charge were never served on the Appellant.”

According to Tompolo, by by virtue of Section 36(6)(b) of the 1999 Constitution, every person who is charged with a criminal offence  is entitled to be given adequate facilities for the preparation of his defence.

Tompolo said Justice Buba also erred in law and violated his right to personal liberty when he refused to set aside the warrant for his arrest which was issued pursuant to section 131 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 when there was unchallenged evidence before the court that he was never served with a Summons to appear in court.

He is also appealing on the basis that there is no street in Warri known as Chief Agbanu DDPA Extension, but that there is Chief Agbamu Close DDPA Extension Warri.

“The Summons and the Criminal Charge were not affixed at the property known as No. 1 Chief Agbamu Close DDPA Extension, Warri, Delta State,” the appellant said.

“The order for the issuance of the warrant for the arrest of the appellant was obtained upon false facts.

“A  warrant of arrest is a very serious court process issued for the deprivation of a person of his personal  liberty by reason of which it ought not to be issued, in law, upon false facts,” Tompolo.

In ground six, Tompolo said the judge “occasioned miscarriage of justice” when he renewed the warrant for the arrest.

Ground eight reads: “The learned trial judge erred in law and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice when he failed, refused or neglected to give a decision on the competence of processes that were filed in breach of Rule 10(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2007 made pursuant to the Legal Practitioners Act.”

Ground nine reads: “The learned trial judge erred in law in holding that it was not wrong for the prosecution to have unilaterally altered the capacity in which this charge was instituted from that of ‘plaintiff’ to that of ‘complainant’ without an order of court.

Ground 10 says: “The ruling of the lower court is unreasonable, unwarranted and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence before the court.”

Justice Buba, last Friday, ordered EFCC to seize Tompolo’s assets due to his refusal to turn himself in.

The property will be auctioned to willing buyers after three months, the court held.