N225,000 for judge’s father-in-law burial, not bribe, Tarfa, SAN tells court

Lagos lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mr Rickey Tarfa, yesterday, denied allegation by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, that he bribed a Federal High Court, Lagos, judge to the tune of N225,000, saying that the money was for the judge’s father-in-law’s burial.

At the resumed hearing in the N2.5billion fundamental rights suit by Tarfa, in which he is challenging his arrest and detention by the EFCC, as well as the confiscation of his phones and car, he said through his lead counsel, Bolaji Ayorinde, SAN, that the money was a donation towards the burial of the judge’s father-in-law, late Alhaji Audi Garba Damasa.

In a 75 paragraph further affidavit deposed to by John Odubela, Head of Chambers, he averred “That the applicant did not on January 7, 2014 bribe Justice M.N Yunusa with the sum of N225,000 or any other sum at all.”

He averred that it was common knowledge in legal circles that the judge lost his father in law, Alhaji Audi Damasa on December 28, 2013 in Maiduguri, Borno State and traveled there to attend to the funeral.

“The applicant and some friends  made some donations towards the said funeral rites and to commiserate with the judge since they could not physically go and commiserate with him in Maiduguri where he was and stayed for a while,” he averred.

Ayorinde had adopted the substantive application, the supporting affidavit and other exhibits as well as written address and urged the court to grant his prayers. He argued that suit before the court has nothing to do with the charge at the Lagos State High Court but the arrest of the applicant without reasonable ground of suspicion.

He argued that the arrest was made without arrest warrant or court order, adding that the suspects the EFCC wanted to arrest were billed to honour their invitation on February 8 and wondered why they decided to come to arrest them on February 5.

He insisted that they were entitled to the reliefs being sought. But defence counsel, Wahab Shittu,  prayed the court to dismiss the application or in the alternative stay further proceedings, pending the determination of the criminal charge against the applicant before the Lagos High Court. He argued that the facts and circumstances of the case arose from the incident of February 5, which has led to a criminal action.

N225,000 for judge’s father-in-law burial, not bribe, Tarfa, SAN tells court

Judge handling Oduah, Kashamu, Ex-NIMASA"s boss case transferred

LITIGANTS with cases at the Federal High Court in Lagos have to wait as the Chief Judge, Justice Ibrahim Auta, has approved the transfer of some judges to other divisions.

oduah

Among those leaving the Lagos Division are Justice Okon Abang, Justice Mohammed Yunusa, Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke and Justice Musa Kurya.

Justice Abang, who barred the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) from arresting Senator Buruji Kashamu for illicit drug dealing allegations, was transferred to Abuja.

His pending cases are: Former Presidential Adviser Kingsley Kuku Vs. Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and Honeywell Group Vs. Ecobank Plc.

Justice Yunusa, who granted the order restraining anti-graft agencies from arresting former Aviation Minister Princess Stella Oduah, was transfered to Enugu State.

Justice Aneke was transfered to Benue, while Justice Kurya to Plateau.

Justice Ibrahim Buba, expected to be moved to the North, will remain in Lagos.

Among cases before Justice Buba is: Former Director-General of Nigeria Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA)  Patrick Akpobolokemi, on trial for fraud.

With the transfers, cases before the judges would begin afresh (de novo).

It was learnt that some litigants were unhappy that their cases would be further delayed.

A human rights group, Access to Justice (A2Justice) decried the transfers, saying such “arbitrary and routine” transfers of judges affect the speedy dispensation of justice.

A2J lamented that the transfer of judges, who have commenced but not completed trials, could have drastic and traumatising effects on litigants and escalate the cost of litigation.

“Such transfers of judges often times occur after the case has spent years on the docket of the court of the transferred judge,” it said.

According to A2J, to re-start cases that have spent years on a cause-list afresh is painful, agonising and hard on litigants.

“This would entail recalling witnesses and re-tendering evidence. Some of the cases affected  may also be fundamental rights cases, where issues of constitutional rights – including liberty or movement – may also be in question.

“These administrative transfers force litigants to outspend themselves to resolve disputes or find remedies, in view of additional expenses involved in re-litigating a matter.

“Transfers take their toll on, and burden witnesses too, some of whom may be unable, on health or other grounds, to return to court to give evidence again.

“When witnesses are unable to reappear to give evidence and a case is thereby prejudiced, this perpetuates, replicates and amplifies negative public impressions about our court system and its ability to uphold the rule of law and dispense justice freely and efficiently.

“No person affected by these transfers would have a positive impression of the court or how the courts take their responsibility to dispense justice,” A2J said.

The group urged the National Judicial Council (NJC) to “adopt and issue a clear, enforceable policy that prevents any judge from being transferred or relocated from his or her court or division without an impact assessment of the effect of such transfers on cases.”

Judge handling Oduah, Kashamu, Ex-NIMASA"s boss case transferred

Oduah Trial: EFCC accuses judge of bias

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has approached the Federal High Court, Lagos for an order disqualifying Justice M. N. Yunusa from handling its six  cases before his court.

oduah

It demanded that the six case files be returned to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Ibrahim Auta, for reassignment.

The cases include those of the $2m cash seized at the Lagos airport and the one involving a former Minister of Aviation, Sen. Stella Oduah.

The EFCC is protesting against Justice Yinusa’s order restraining the commission from arresting the former minister.

The EFCC made the plea in an “Affidavit of Urgency” filed on Tuesday before the court by one of its lawyers.

The anti-graft agency is praying for an order disqualifying Justice Yunusa from further hearing of the cases.

It said: “The cases include: Mr Jyde Adelakun and Touch of Flame Energy Company Limited vs. Chairman, EFCC and Ibelema Bristol in suit number: FHC/ L/ CS/ 1285/2015; Federal Republic of Nigeria vs. Michael Adenuga in Suit Number: FHC/L/CS/ 487/ 2014 ; Honourable Shamsudeen Abogu vs. EFCC and Others in suit number: FHC/L/ CS/ 1269/2015; Dele Martins vs. EFCC and Others in suit number: FHC//L/CS/1623/2015 and Chike Obiakor vs. EFCC and Others in suit number: FHC/ L/ CS/2011/2014.

The Commission hinged its request on the grounds of “bias and denial of fair hearing” by Justice Yunusa.

“In one of the cases, particularly the matter between Jyde Adelakun and Touch of Flame Energy Company Limited vs. Chairman, EFCC and Ibelema Bristol, the EFCC sought a consolidation of the suit number FHC/L/CS/1285/2015 and suit number FHC/L/CS/1165/2015 but the application was ignored.

“Besides, a pending Court Order freezing the bank accounts of Adelakun and Touch of Flame Energy Company Limited (who are being investigated in a case of money laundering involving over $2,000,000.00 was communicated to Justice Yunusa, with an application for a short adjournment to enable the EFCC file an affidavit to exhibit the Order.

“Justice Yunusa reportedly turned down the application and even refused an oral application to this effect, but went ahead to fix September 23rd, 2015 for judgment.”

The EFCC believes that “having regard to the events that took place before the court during the proceedings on 21st September, it will not get justice except the case is re-assigned to another judge”.

The anti-graft agency asked for the return of the case files to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court for reassignment.

The document added: “The EFCC believes that “having regard to the events that took place before the court during the proceedings on 21st September, it will not get justice except the case is re-assigned to another judge”.

“Also, the EFCC is outraged by a fresh order of Interim Injunction granted by Justice Yunusa,  restraining it from ‘arresting, detaining, harassing, intimidating, preventing, refusing, interfering with and /or denying’ one of its suspects being investigated,  his right to personal liberty and freedom of movement into, within and outside Nigeria.

“The suspect, Dr. Martins Olufemi Thomas, is being investigated by the EFCC for ownership and movement of the sum of $2,200,000.00.

“This ex parte order is coming on the heels of similar order by the same judge, barring the EFCC from investigating or arresting a former Aviation Minister, Stella Oduah.

“Justifying its grounds for seeking the disqualification of Justice Yunusa, the EFCC says that “if this application is not granted and the trial judge fails to disqualify himself, the fundamental rights of the Commission to fair hearing will be infringed.

“It is further submitted that it is the law that any proceedings conducted in breach of the fundamental right to fair hearing is a nullity, no matter how well conducted.”

Oduah Trial: EFCC accuses judge of bias

Judge: I Did Not Stop INEC from Publishing List of Ondo PDP Candidates

2

By Tobi Soniyi


Justice Ahmed Ramat Mohammed of a Federal High Court in Abuja has debunked claims that he restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from publishing the names of candidates of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) for the National and State Assembly elections from Ondo State.

Justice Mohammed stated that he rather abridged the time from 15th to 6th of January to enable Justice Adeniyi Ademola who had granted an interim order on the matter to determine whether there is a contempt of court or not in the interim orders he made on December 18.

A certified true copy of the court’s proceedings made available to our correspondent corroborated the judge’s position.

The CTC read: “It is clear that the controversy centres around whether Hon. Justice Ademola has directed the 2nd alleged contemnor (INEC) to either accept list of candidates for election into the state Assembly, House of Representatives and Senate for Ondo State from the plaintiffs only, or from the first alleged contemnor (PDP) only.

“This suit is still pending before Hon. Justice Ademola and my Lord only adjourned the matter to January 15th for hearing of the plaintiff’s motion on notice. Sitting as vacation court, this court came into the matter as a result of the motion ex-parte dated and filed on December 29, 2014 alleging that the first and second alleged contemnors (INEC and PDP) have flouted the orders of Justice Ademola made on December 18, 2014 in suit No:1006/14.

“With the divergent views taken by the parties on whether there is contempt of the orders of Ademola or not, this court is of the view that it is extremely difficult to place any meaningful interpretation on the orders. Made by his lordship, Justice Ademola in suit no:1006/14 having regard to the conflicting interpretation given to it by the parties.

“As thus, the court is resuming from the Christmas and new year vacation on Monday January 5, 2015, I am of the view that the matter ought to await his lordship, Justice Ademola’s attention.”

Justice Mohammed however noted that the gravement of the plaintiff’s complaint in the motion ex-parte dated December 29, 2014 that the 2nd alleged contemnor (INEC) would close the receipt of candidates for the National Assembly elections.

The judge said: “Well, let me note that INEC might have made its guidelines for closing receiving of list of candidates for National Assembly elections by 31st December, but if there is an order of the court directing it to accept the name of any person, then it has the obligation under the 1999 Constitution to obey the court’s order.

“As there is uncertainty as to what is the true intent and purport of the interim order made by Justice Ademola, this court is of the opinion that none of the parties should do anything from now till Tuesday, January 6, 2015 with regard to the subject matter that will render whatever decision that Justice Ademola could make on whether or not there is a disobedience of his interim orders.

“I am of fact that this is the only proper course to take in the circumstances to allow Justice Ademola look into the allegations of whether there is contempt or not in the interim orders he made on December 18.”

The contempt proceedings against INEC and PDP arose from an order by Justice Ademola directing them to relate with Ondo PDP led by Olu Ogunye in respect of the primaries in the state.

scheme in the past 25 years.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Viewed 1 times
Judge: I Did Not Stop INEC from Publishing List of Ondo PDP Candidates

CJN sued over alleged fraud in appointment of FCT judges

ABUJA—Abuja Division of the Federal High Court has been asked to stop any move by either President Goodluck Jonathan or the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Mariam Aloma Mukhtar, to appoint five new judges for the Federal Capital Territory, FCT.

The court was asked to invoke its powers and stop the planned elevation of the new judges, following alleged fraud in the appointment process which was allegedly skewed to favour specific states.

The suit, which was filed by an Abuja-based legal practitioner, Mrs. Chidinma Hilary Udebuani, specifically fingered the Chief Judge of the FCT, Justice Ibrahim Bukar, in the alleged appointment fraud.

He was said to have abused the law by deliberately listing only people from certain parts of the country to head courts in the FCT, an action said to be in gross violation of the federal character principle.

The lawyer argued that the law that established the FCT Judiciary, provided that it should have a composition of 37 judges excluding the Chief Judge, with the result that there shall be a judge from each state of the Federation and the FCT.

The plaintiff told the court that whereas some states like Katsina have about four judges currently sitting at the FCT high court, some states have none.

According to the plaintiff, “the Chief Judge of the FCT has been in breach of the said legislation, which was meant to run with the spirit of the Federal character as enshrined in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The breach manifests itself in the discriminatory method of appointment in the FCT High court, particularly of the High Court judges.

“That a state like Kastina has always had four Judges until recently when one of them was elevated to the Court of Appeal, still leaving three judges to the credit of Kastina, while other states have no representation.”

Viewed 1 times
CJN sued over alleged fraud in appointment of FCT judges