How Supreme Court wrongly freed Bode George: Femi falana

Lagos lawyer and activist Femi Falana (SAN) criticises the Supreme Court judgment which quashed the conviction of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Chief Bode George.

In criticising the lack of commitment of the Goodluck Jonathan Administration to the anti-corruption crusade

commentators have often failed to pay sufficient attention to the penchant of Nigerian courts to dismiss corruption cases on the altar of technicalities. It is on record that many corruption cases filed against members of the ruling class by the anti-graft agencies have been dismissed in the last few weeks on flimsy grounds. On the contrary, the courts have had no difficulty in convicting petty criminals and sentencing them to long terms of imprisonment for stealing telephone handsets, bush meat, tubers of yam etc on account of poverty. In reviewing the anti-corruption war, therefore, the class character of the nation’s neo-colonial legal system should always be taken into consideration.

Last month, the case involving the missing hundreds of millions of naira from the Universal Basic Education Fund was struck out by the Federal High Court. A fortnight ago, the Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal struck out the criminal case filed against some bank chiefs by the EFCC on the ground that the Lagos State High Court lacks the jurisdiction to try them for allegedly stealing billions of Naira through the manipulation of the capital market. On December 13, 2013, the Federal Capital Territory High Court struck out the charge of stealing government land and allocating same to his wife and other family members filed against Mr. Nasir El-Rufai when it upheld his no case submission while the Supreme Court discharged and acquitted Chief Olabode George and other former members of the Nigeria Ports Authority on the ground that the offence of contract splitting was unknown to law at the material time.

This review is limited to the case of Chief Olabode George & co. for two reasons. Firstly, the EFCC has decided to appeal against the judgments, which freed the other accused persons. Secondly, the verdict of the Supreme Court has serious implications for the nation’s criminal law jurisprudence. More so, that the finding of the apex court that the appellants were tried and convicted for contract splitting is not borne out of the records of both the trial court and the Court of Appeal. In other words, the Lagos High Court had convicted them of the offences of abuse of powers and disobedience to lawful order contrary to sections 104 and 203 of the Lagos State Criminal Code. However, while congratulating the appellants on removing the stigma of infamy from their names it cannot be denied that the outcome of the case is a major setback for the anti corruption crusade.

The right to criticise court judgments

Before one is accused of committing contempt of court for commenting on the controversial judgment, it is pertinent to point out that the right to criticise the judgments of courts is part of the fundamental right of every citizen to freedom of expression guaranteed by section 39 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has always welcomed a constructive criticism of its decisions having regards to their finality and overall impact on the nation’s legal system. In Adegoke Motors v Adesanya (1989) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt 109) 250 at 274-275, the reverred Chukwudifu Oputa J.S.C alluded to the finality of the decisions of the Supreme Court when he said that “we are final not because we are infallible, rather we are infallible because we are final. Justices of this Court are human beings capable of erring. It will be shortsighted arrogance not to accept this obvious truth”.

In the same vein, the late Justice Kayode Eso said in the case of Adigun v Governor of Oyo State (No 2) 2 N.W.R (Pt 56) 197 at 214-215 that “the decision of the Supreme Court is final. Final in the sense of real finality in so far as the particular case before it is concerned. It is final forever, except there is legislation to the contrary, and it has to be a legislation ad hominem”. In recognition of the enormous powers of the apex court Justice Eso was of the view that “It is such dread powers that must necessitate great care in the calibre of the Court and such dread that must necessitate pungent and constructive analytical criticism of every judgment of the Court in the law journals and similar fora”. In reaction to the view of some judges and lawyers that it is contemptuous to subject decisions of courts to criticism Justice Eso stated that “the judgment of a court should not be treated with sacred sanctity, once it gets to the right critical forum”.

Where the supreme court erred in law

In the case of Chief Bode George & co. the appellants were tried, convicted and sentenced to various prison terms by the Lagos High Court on October 26, 2009 for abuse of powers and disobedience of lawful orders. Completely displeased with the verdict, the appellants challenged it on appeal. In its considered judgment delivered on January 21, 2011, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the learned trial judge, Olubunmi Oyewole J. Still dissatisfied the appellants further appealed to the Supreme Court. In its judgment handed down a fortnight ago the Supreme Court set aside the concurrent findings of both the Lagos High Court and the Court of Appeal with respect to the conviction of the appellants.

In discharging and acquitting them the apex court held that the offence of contract splitting was unknown to law at the time the appellants were tried and convicted by the Lagos High Court. In his leading judgment the Honourable Justice John Afolabi Fabiyi held inter alia: “It occurred to me that Section 203 of the Criminal Code is not in tune with the dictate of Section 36 (12) of the 1999 Constitution. That being the position, the charges filed under section 203 of the said Code ostensibly for splitting contract in disobedience of lawful order by constituted authority cannot stand … I say it with utmost confidence that the same position applies to the provision of Section 104 of the said Criminal Code. Acts said to have constituted arbitrary acts resulting in abuse of office are splitting of contracts which were not offences known to law at the material time.”

It is submitted, without any fear of contradiction, that the appellants were not charged for contract splitting by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission but for “abuse of powers” and “disobedience of lawful order” contrary to sections 104 and 203 of the Criminal Code of Lagos State respectively. In summarising the unassailable judgment of the learned trial judge, Clara Ogunbiyi JCA (as she then was) had, in her lead judgment, said the appellants were arraigned “on 68 counts of offences bordering on inflation of contracts, conspiracy to disobey lawful orders and abuse of office …”

Since both sections 104 and 203 have been part of the Criminal Code as far back as 1914 it is unbelievable that the Supreme Court held that the appellants were charged under an unknown law. The crime of disobedience to lawful order by splitting contracts was not unknown before the enactment of the Public Procurement Act, 2007. In the instant case, contract splitting was a particular of the offence and not the offence alleged against the appellants. But for some inexplicable reasons, the apex court substituted the particular for the offence and arrived at a wrong conclusion. Curiously, the Supreme Court conveniently ignored the finding of the Court of Appeal that the appellants violated sections 104 and 203 of the Criminal Code when they awarded contracts beyond their approval limits which was “borne out by evidence from all the witnesses on both sides”.

Although it has been established in a plethora of cases decided by the Supreme Court that an appellate court has no power to disturb the finding of a lower court which is not challenged on appeal. But for reasons best known to the apex court it decided to depart from the settled principle of law in discharging and acquitting the appellants. From the record of appeal it is indisputable that the Court of Appeal had unanimously agreed with the prosecution that the intention to defraud the nation was proved beyond reasonable doubt by the conduct of the appellants who consistently approved contracts of several billions of naira beyond their approval limit. There was not a single ground of appeal that attacked that particular crucial finding of the lower court. Yet the Supreme Court decided, albeit illegally, to tamper with the finding of the court below and proceeded to hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants.

The most embarrassing aspect of the judgment was that the Supreme Court annulled two provisions of the Criminal Code of Lagos without hearing from the Attorney-General of Lagos State in line with established practice. With profound respect to their Lordships there is no legal justification whatsoever for declaring sections 104 and 203 of the Criminal Code illegal and unconstitutional. No doubt, the attention of the apex court was not drawn to the undeniable fact that Section 104 of the Criminal Code is in pari materia with Section 9 of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers set out in Part 1 of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution which has created the offence of abuse of power. Therefore, Section 104 of the Criminal Code cannot be said to be unconstitutional since the same Constitution has created the offence of “abuse of powers”.

Conclusion

As the verdict of the apex court was based on wrong legal foundation its validity remains questionable. Although the appellants have been exculpated, it is hoped that the Supreme Court will soon have another opportunity to reverse the highly erroneous judgment so as to restore sections 104 and 203 of the Lagos State Criminal Code which were struck down for no justifiable legal reasons. However, the case of Chief Bode George & co. should not be treated in isolation as it is now the trend to strike out or dismiss charges filed against members of the bourgeoisie. To that extent, decision of the Supreme Court should be seen as an audacious expression of class solidarity.

Perhaps, majority of Nigerians are not aware of the fact that out of the over 400 convictions which the EFCC has secured in the 10 years of its existence, only four members of the political class have been successfully prosecuted through dubious plea bargain deals. In the circumstance, instead of wasting the meagre resources allocated to the anti-graft agencies on securing convictions which are going to be set aside in favour of members of the ruling class it is high time the Federal Government stopped charging politically exposed persons and other influential criminal suspects to court. In the atmosphere of impunity in the land judges should equally stop the immoral practice of railroading petty criminals to jail.

Court remands Bamidele’s ‘aides’ in prison

A Magistrate’s Court, sitting in Ado-Ekiti, the Ekiti State capital, yesterday remanded two “aides” of House of Representatives member Opeyemi Bamidele (Ekiti Central) in prison custody.

Afolabi Oyediran and Oluwafemi Sunday were arrested at the home of the Senior Special Assistant to the Governor on Internal Security, Mr. Deji Adesokan, on December 20 after allegedly scaling the fence.

A pistol, loaded with live ammunition, was found on one of the suspects.

They suspects pleaded “not guilty” to the two charges of conspiracy and illegal possession of firearms.

Defence counsel Chris Omokhafe urged the court to grant his clients bail on the grounds that they were first time offenders.

Police prosecutor Bankole Olasunkanmi said the court reserved the prerogative to grant the accused bail and requested an adjournment to allow him study the case file.

The Chief Magistrate, Simon Ojo, said: “Granting the suspects bail at this stage might not be appropriate because the charges are serious and the issue of security cannot be taken lightly. So, the application is hereby refused.”

The case was adjourned till January 20.

The suspects are said to be Bamidele’s aides, but the lawmaker disowned them.

2013: The cases that stood out in the year

Excess Crude Account (ECA) and the Sovereign Wealth Fund (SWF) case

The suit by the 36 governors challenging

the propriety of the Excess Crude Account

(ECA) and the Sovereign Wealth Fund (SWF) made headlines in the outgoing year.

The Supreme Court initially granted a long adjournment to enable parties resolve the dispute amicably. It later resumed hearing after the governors and the Federal Government failed to settle the dispute over the alleged illegal diversion of funds meant for the federation to maintain the ECA and SWF.

The states had filed different suits seeking the interpretation of Section 162 of the 1999 Constitution as it affected the diversion of funds, which ordinarily ought to accrue to the Federation Account for sharing among the three tiers of government.

In the suit the states are asking the court to resolve the dispute over the retention of the ECA and the transfer of $1 billion to the SWF. The 36 states are praying for an order compelling the government of the federation to pay into the Federation Account, N5.51 trillion being the balance of the money that accrued to the central purse between 2004 and 2007 from the proceeds of crude oil sales, petroleum profits tax and oil royalties. The court has fixed March 24 next year for hearing.

Pension fund cases

Early in the year, the trial of former officials of the Police Pension Fund at an Abuja High Court took a dramatic turn when one of the accused in the N39 billion scam, John Yakubu Yusufu, who had earlier pleaded not guilty alongside his co- accused, changed his plea. He pleaded guilty to the three out of the amended 20 count-charge brought against them by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). Yusufu pleaded guilty to counts 18, 19 and 20 where he was alleged to have connived with Essai Dangabar, Atiku Abubakar Kigo, Ahmed Inuwa Wada, Veronica Ulonma, Sani Habila Zira, Uzoma Cyril Attang and Christian Madubuike, to convert N24.2 billion, N1.3 billion and N1.7 billion, belonging to the Pension Office to their own use. Justice Talba Mohammed sentenced Yusufu to two years’imprisonment on each of the counts or N250,000 fine. The jail terms were to run concurrently. The judgment led to public outcry, culminating in the suspension of Justice Talba for one year by the National Judicial Council (NJC) because he allegedly did not exercise his discretion judicially and judiciously with regard to the Yusuf sentence.

Meanwhile, the case involving former Director of Pensions Accounts in the Office of the Head of Civil Service of the Federation, Dr Sani Teidi Shuaibu and a banker, Eric Omoefe Uduesegbe, is still ongoing at the Federal High Court in Abuja. The court has heard how some government officials assigned to manage civil servants’ pension savings stole from the funds, using fictitious firms operated by private agents to defraud the fund of N1.951billion.

The Hezbolla case

One of the three Lebanese accused of belonging to Hezbollah terrorist group was jailed for life by the Federal High Court in Abuja. Talal Ahmad Roda, who was arrested in the Kano State House, where the ammunition was found, got life imprisonment having been found guilty of conspiracy.

Boko Haram: Court upholds Ndume’s appeals

The Court of Appeal, Abuja upheld the two appeals filed by Senator Mohammed Ali Ndume against decisions of the Federal High Court, Abuja in his trial on terrorism-related charges. The appellate court, in a judgment read by Justice Amiru Sanusi, faulted the decisions by Justice Gabriel Kolawole of the Federal High Court in which he, in two rulings on December 11 and 14, last year, admitted some computer generated items in evidence in Ndume’s trial. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred when it admitted the items even when the prosecution failed to comply with the condition precedent as required under Section 84(1) and (2) of the Evidence Act 2011 (as amended) in relation to the admission of computer generated evidence. Ndume, a Senator from Borno State, is facing terrorism-related charges before the Federal High Court, in Abuja.

2011 Christmas Day bombing case

A Federal High Court in Abuja convicted Kabiru Umar (aka Kabriru Sokoto) over his complicity in the 2011 Christmas Day bombing of St Theresa Catholic Church, Madalla, Niger State. The court also found him guilty in connection with plots to bomb the Police Headquarters and some other strategic public institutions in the state. Justice Ademola Adeniyi sentenced him to life imprisonment on the first count and 10 years in relation to the second count of the two-count charge on which he was arraigned before the court on April 19, this year by the Federal Government. About 44 worshippers died in the church when Boko Haram members rammed a car packed with explosives into the gates of the church on December 25, 2011.

My Pikin case

In March, a Federal High Court, Lagos wound up Barewa Pharmaceutical Ltd, the manufacturer of My Pikin baby teething mixture, which allegedly killed about 80 babies in 2008. Justice Okechukwu Okeke (now retired) sentenced two of the company’s employees to a total of 28 years’imprisonment. The firm, its Production Manager, Mr. Adeyemo Abiodun; and the Quality Assurance Manager, Egbele Eromosele, were convicted for conspiracy and selling of a dangerous drug. Justice Okeke sentenced Abiodun and Eromosele to seven years each for conspiracy to sell a dangerous drug and to another seven years for selling dangerous drug, but ordered that the sentences should run concurrently.

NIMASA vs NLNG case

After weeks of legal tussle, the Federal High Court, Lagos, in July entered a consent order in the dispute between the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) and the Nigeria LNG (NLNG) Limited.

Justice Mohammed Idris gave the verdict after parties informed him they had reached an amicable settlement in the meantime.

NLNG’s counsel, Olawale Akoni (SAN), withdrew the contempt proceedings against the Attorney-General of the Federation Mohammed Adoke (SAN). The court subsequently struck out the contempt charge, and dismissed those of the other defendants, including the contempt charge against NIMASA, for being defective.

The letters, which formed the basis of the judgment were dated July 5 and July 12, this year. NLNG and NIMASA agreed that the agency would immediately revoke the detention order of NLNG vessels and release them, subject to NLNG making the payments to NIMASA. NLNG owed NIMASA a total USD158million. The firm had paid $20million out of the debt.

Supreme Court acquittal of Bode George, others

The Supreme Court set aside the Lagos State High Court judgment that jailed former chairman of the board of Nigerian Ports Authority, Chief Olabode George and five former members. The five directors of the NPA whose sentensing were also quashed are Aminu Dabo, Captain Oluwasegun Abidoye, Alhaji Abdullahi Tafida, Alhaji Zanna Maidaribe and Sule Aliyu, an engineer. The apex court discharged and acquitted them of corruption, inflation and splitting of contracts, for which they had been convicted after prosecution by the anti-graft agency. George, a Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) chieftain, was the NPA chairman between 2001 and 2003 when the alleged offences were said to have been committed.

PDP sues over lawmakers’ defection

The People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and its Chairman, Bamanga Tukur, faulted the decision of its 37 members in the House of Representatives to defect to the opposition All Progressives Congress (APC) despite an order by the Federal High Court that parties to the suit by the lawmakers maintain status quo. In an application, the PDP prayed the court for an order declaring the defection on December 18, 2013, by 37 of the plaintiffs from the PDP to ACP as null and void and contrary to the order of the court made on December 17. It is also praying for a mandatory order of the court directing the 37 legislators to revert to the status quo, pending the hearing of the plaintiffs’ motion on notice for interlocutory injunction. Hearing in the case has been fixed for January 22, 2014.

Iranian, Nigerian accomplice jailed

For importing 13-container-load of arms and ammunition into Nigeria without licence, an Iranian Azim Aghajani and his Nigerian accomplice Ali Jega were sentenced to 17 years in jail in April. Justice Okeke found them guilty of four out of five counts of illegal importation of the arms. He sentenced them to five years’ imprisonment on the first count, two years on the third count and five years each on the fourth and fifth counts.

The jails terms will run concurrently, beginning from February 1, 2011, when they were first arraigned. The judge ordered that the arms and ammunition be forfeited to the Federal Government.

Suits over Ojukwu’s property

Several actions and counter suits were filed by members of the late Ikemba Nnewi, Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu Ojukwu family the Lagos State High Court and the Federal High Court.

In one of them, Ojukwu Transport Limited filed two suits against Mrs Bianca Ojukwu and others, demanding N280 million over some properties located in Ikoyi. In another suit, two children of the late Ikemba Nnewi, Afamefuna and Nwachukwu, sued the company and and seven others over some property located in Ikoyi and Yaba, Lagos. The claimants sought a declaration that they are entitled to the possession and occupation of a property located on 29 Oyinkan Abayomi Drive (formerly Queens Drive), Ikoyi until the harmonisation of the management and administration of the first defendant’s assets.

Aribisala sues over withdrawal of SAN

A lawyer, Chief Ajibola Aribisala, whose rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) was withdrawn on February 26, sued the Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee (LPPC) and Fidelity Bank Plc at the Lagos State High Court, Igbosere. He sought an order setting aside, or nullifying his suspension from the use of SAN with its accompanying privileges.

The decision to withdraw the rank was taken by the LPPC, headed by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Aloma Mukhtar. Aribisala asked for an order of interlocutory injunction restraining LPPC either by itself or its agents from hearing, considering or taking any step with respect to a petition by Fidelity, dated May 15, last year, pending the determination of the substantive suit.

Nnamani’s case

All through the year, the trial of former Enugu State Governor Dr Chimaroke Nnamani never took off. It made headlines when the trial judge ruled that he could travel whenever he wanted. He was said to still be abroad despite a directive that he must report in court to face trial for alleged money laundering at the Federal High Court, Lagos. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) re-arraigned Nnamani and others before Justice Yinusa on 105 counts of money laundering and economic crimes involving about N4.5billion of state funds.

Arraignment of 17 Boko Haram suspects

Lagos State Government arraigned 17 alleged members of the Boko Haram sect at the Federal High Court, Lagos. The suspects were charged with eight counts of belonging to the proscribed organisation and for being in possession of explosives and dangerous weapons.

The government said they conspired among themselves “to commit felony, to with: acts of terrorism” by having in their possession explosive substances, including three packets of explosive construction pipes and 15 detonators. The court has ruled their trial will be held behind closed doors.

Omehia vs Amaechi

The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) opposed the bid of the Rivers State Governor, Rotimi Amaechi, to get the Supreme Court to set aside a Court of Appeal ruling which joined his predecessor, Celestine Omehia, as an interested party in a suit concerning his tenure in office.

After listening to the submissions of various parties in the appeal, a panel of justices of the Supreme Court fixed February 7, 2014, to deliver its judgment. The subject of the suit is whether Amaechi’s tenure started on May 29, 2007, when Omehia was inaugurated, or on October 2007, when the governor was sworn-in after Omehia’s removal by a decision of the Supreme Court.

PDP versus five defecting governors

The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) asked an Abuja Federal High Court to sack the five governors who defected to the All Progressives Congress. The governors are Alhaji Murtala Nyako (Adamawa), Rotimi Amaechi (Rivers), Aliyu Wamakko (Sokoto), Rabiu Kwankwaso (Kano) and Abdulfatai Ahmed (Kwara). PDP argued that the governors should be sacked from office on the ground that, because of their defection, they have forfeited their offices, which, as a result, have reverted to the party.

ThisDay bomber jailed

Mustapha Umar, the Boko Haram member, who bombed a plaza housing the offices of some newspapers in Kaduna in April, last year, was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment with hard labour by an Abuja Federal High Court. Three persons lost their lives in the bomb attack in the premises of SOJ Plaza, located at R9, Kontagora Road, by Ahmadu Bello Way, Kaduna, which is occupied by Thisday, The Moment and The Sun newspapers.

Alleged kidnap kingpin Kelvin remanded

An Abuja Chief Magistrate, Usman Ahmed Shuaibu ordered that alleged kidnap kingpin Kelvin Eziegbe, Frank Azuekoh and Haruna Momoh be remanded in the custody of the Department of the State Security Services (DSSS), pending the conclusion of investigations into the alleged crime against them. The charge against him read: “That between February 2, 2012 and September 24, 2013 at Kokori, Asaba, Warri, Port Harcourt and Benin City, in Delta, Rivers and Edo states and on the Benin-Abuja road, Abuja FCT, you Kelvin Eziegbe, Frank Azuekoh and Haruna Momoh conspired with Rufus Ovwigho, Ese Oghenerojakor and others now at large to kidnap for ransom Mike Ozekhome (SAN), Chudi Nwike (Dr), Hope Eghagha (Prof) and many others.”

Fred Ajudua’s case

Lagos socialite, Mr. Fred Ajudua will be arraigned at a Lagos High Court, Ikeja presided by Justice Oluwatoyin Ipaye on February 12, next year for allegedly defrauding a former Chief of Army Staff, Lt.-Gen. Ishaya Bamaiyi, of about $8.395million. In another development, Ajudua and co-accused, Charles Hijiudu, are also before the court for allegedly defrauding two Dutch businessmen – Mr. Remy Cina and Pierre Vijgen – of about $1.69million between July 1999 and September 2000.

Ajudua’s counsel, Mr. Olalekan Ojo, filed the fresh bail application before a vacation judge, Justice Ganiyu Safari in September, this year, but was denied bail. He had earlier been denied bail by Justice Olubunmi Oyewole on June 27, this year. He had ruled that Ajudua had failed to present convincing materials to back his claim that he would not escape trial after doing so for seven years when he was earlier granted bail in 2005.

Francis Atuche case

The trial of the former Managing Director of the defunct Bank PHB, Mr. Francis Atuche, is one that would continue to make headlines. He had two different charges preferred against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). In one of the cases, he is standing trial alongside his wife, Elizabeth and a former Chief Financial Officer of the bank, Ugo Anyanwu, over the alleged N25.7 billion theft charged preferred them by the Commission before Justice Lateefat Okunnu of a Lagos High Court, Ikeja. In the second matter, Atuche is standing trial alongside a former director of Bank PHB, Funmi Ademosun, for allegedly stealing N4.2 billion belonging to Caverton Helicopters Ltd in September 2007 before Justice Adeniyi Onigbanjo of a Lagos High Court, Ikeja.

Erastus Akingbola case

The former Managing Director of Intercontinental Bank Plc, Mr Erastus Akingbola, is to be re-arraigned before Lagos High Court, Ikeja, presided by Justice Lateef Lawal-Akapo on March 24, next year. The EFCC had charged Akingbola and an associate Bayo Dada to court for allegedly stealing N47.1 billion belonging to the defunct Intercontinental Bank Plc. They are to face a 22-count charge of stealing and obtaining money by false pretences. The duo were earlier arraigned on May 31, 2011 before Justice Habeeb Abiru, at the Lagos High Court, Ikeja. Abiru was about to deliver judgment on the matter before he was elevated to the Court of Appeal. The matter was later re- assigned to Justice Adeniyi Onigbanjo and the defendants were re-arraigned on February 26, 2013. Their case file was again transferred to Justice Lawal-Akapo following the recent changes in the Lagos Judiciary that moved Justice Onigbanjo to the Commercial Division of the Court.

Wale Babalakin case

The trial of the Chairman of Bi-Courtney Limited, Chief Olawale Babalakin (SAN) for alleged money laundering made headlines and would continue at the Lagos High Court Ikeja presided by Justice Lateef Lawal-Akapo on January 20, next year. Babalakin was first arraigned before Justice Adeniyi Onigbanjo who was later moved to the Commercial Division of the High Court from the Criminal Division. The EFCC had arraigned Babalakin alongside four others, including Alex Okoh, Stabilini Vision Limited, his company Bi-Courtney Limited and Renix Nigeria Limited for fraudulently transferring N4.7billion out of the country on behalf of the convicted former governor of Delta State, James Ibori, an allegation they denied.

Cynthia’s murder trial

The trial of the four suspects who alleged killed Cynthia Osokogu will continue before Justice Olabisi Akinlade of a Lagos High Court, Igbosere as from January 13, next year. The defendants – Okwumo Nwabufo 33; Olisaeloka Ezike, 23; Orji Osita, 33; and Ezike Nonso, 25 – are being tried by the Lagos State Government. They allegedly chained and strangled Cynthia Osokogu, whom they met on face book, a popular social media, to death.

Cynthia, a 25-year-old student, businesswoman and daughter of Major-General Frank Osokogu (rtd), was lured to Lagos ostensibly to purchase ladies’ wears for her boutique, but was drugged, raped and strangled to death in a room at the Cosmilla Hotel at Lakeview Estate Phase 1, Amuwo Odofin, FESTAC, Lagos, on July 22, last year.

At the last hearing November 20, this year, two of the four defendants standing trial on Cynthia’s murder case appeared as witnesses at the court.

The first defendant Mr.Echezona Nwabufo Okwumo while being led in evidence by his counsel Mr. Victor Okpara admitted to know the deceased Miss Osogogu. He said she was his girlfriend and they have known each other for about one year before the incident.

Under cross examination by the Lagos State Attorney-General, Mr. Ade Ipaye, the first defendant also confirmed that the hand writing and the signature on the confessional statement were his.

The second defendant Mr.Olisaeloka Ezike Chidera said he was arrested at Nnewi, Anambra State and brought to FESTAC Police Station. He said he led the police to arrest Echezona at his FESTAC resident.

When he was shown the CCTV Footage, he confirmed that the picture was taken at Cosmilla Hotel.

Female banker’s murder trial

Justice Lateefat Okunnun of a Lagos High Court, Ikeja will next year deliver judgment in the murder trial preferred against Akolade Arowolo, who allegedly killed his banker wife, Titilayo Omozoje. The trial judge is expected to fix a date soon for the delivery of her judgment on the matter, the prosecution led by the Lagos State Director of Public Prosecution (DPP), Mrs. Olabisi Ogungbesan having closed her testimony and Arowolo, his defence. Arowolo, a jobless graduate, had been arraigned before the court on a one count of murder of his wife, Titilayo, a staff member of Skye Bank Plc at their 8 Akindehinde Street, Isolo, a suburb of Lagos, on Saturday, June 24,2011.The DPP, Mrs. Ogungbesan had alleged that the defendant killed his wife by stabbing her several times in the chest and the stomach. Foremost pathologist, Prof. John Obafunwa, had asserted in his testimony that Titilayo was stabbed 76 times, saying it was not possible for a human being to inflict such wounds on oneself. But Arowolo, in his defence, had insisted that his wife stabbed herself to death. While being cross-examined by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mrs. Olabisi Ogungbesan, he said that contrary to public opinion, the deceased stabbed herself to death.

Fuel subsidy tragedy

The trial of the dismissed Divisional Police Officer of Yaya-Abatan Police Station, Segun Fabunmi, who allegedly killed Adedamola Daramola Abe at Ogba, Ikeja during the protest against removal of fuel subsidy in January, last year will continue before Justice Olabisi Akinlade at a Lagos High Court this year. The former DPO was also charged to court for inflicting grievous bodily harm on Abubakar and two other protesters, Egbujor Samuel and Chibuzo Udo Two prosecution witnesses, Adekunle Alabi and Alimi Abubakar, told the Lagos State High Court sitting in Ikeja how Segun Fabunmi, how the dismissed Divisional Police Officer, accused of shooting protesters during anti fuel subsidy removal protest of January 9, last year, snatched the gun of one of his colleagues to shoot protesters.

Fuel subsidy fraud trial

The EFCC will on February 20, next year continue with the trial of Abdullahi Alao, son of a prominent Ibadan-based businessman, Alhaji Abdullazeez Arisekola-Alao, over alleged N1.1 billion fuel subsidy fraud before a lagos High court presided by Justice Lateefat Okunnu. Abdullahi Alao, was arraigned by the EFCC, alongside two other oil marketers, Opeyemi Ajuyah and Olarenwaju Olalusi, and their companies, Majope Investment Limited and Axenergy Limited. They are facing an eight-count charge bordering on conspiracy, obtaining money by false pretences, forgery, uttering and use of false documents. At the last hearing, the court dismissed Alao’s application in which he sought the court’s nod to quash the alleged N1.1 billion fuel subsidy fraud charge preferred against him by the commission.

Tukur’s son

Formal trial of Mahmud, son of Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Alhaji Bamanga Tukur, and others charged for alleged N1.8billion fuel subsidy fraud will begin next year before a Lagos High Court in Ikeja presided by Justice Lawal-Akapo. Others, who were re-arraigned alongside Mahmud by the EFCC included Alex Ochonogor, their firm, Eterna Plc; and Abdullahi Alao, who is a son of Ibadan-based businessman, Abdulazeez Arisekola-Alao on a nine-count charge of subsidy fraud. The accused persons were initially arraigned before Justice Adeniyi Onigbanjo on July 26, 2012 before his transfer out of the Criminal Division of the Lagos State Judiciary. After the defendants took their plea, Justice Lawal-Akapo ruled that the accused be allowed to continue enjoying the earlier bail granted them by Justice Onigbanjo.

MAN HELD FOR THEFT AND BUS DAMAGING

A 30-YEAR-OLD man, Lekan Jamiu has been arraigned at a Magistrate Court in Ikeja for damaging a bus and stealing.

The prosecutor, Edet Okoi, alleged that Jamiu damaged a Paragon bus engine, with registration number XL193FKJ worth N95,000 belonging to Okorie Nnamdi.

He said the defendant also stole N250,000 by converting delivery money of Paragon bus to his property.

The prosecutor said the incident happened at Maryland, Lagos.

He said the offence is punishable under Section 285 and Section 348 of the Criminal law No.11 Vol.44 of Lagos State,2011.

The defendant pleaded not guilty to the two-count charge.

The trial magistrate, Makanju Oshodi, admitted the defendant to bail of N100,000.

The matter was adjourned to February,10, 2014 for hearing.

DHL SUED N3m BY CUSTOMER FOR LOST OF CREDENTIALS

A CUSTOMER Daniel Okon Etuk has sued DHL International Nigeria Limited at the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court, asking it to pay about N3million for the loss of its credentials.

Etuk, a graduate of Food Engineering from the University of Uyo in Akwa Ibom State had earlier this year, contacted the courier firm to help deliver his original certificates to the Southwestern University in the Philippines, where he had been offered an admission to study Pharmacy.

He stated in a statement of claims, that the university had requested the original copies of his credentials, including the West African School Certificate (WASC) , birth certificate, police report, among others, as part of the admission requirements.

Etuk said it was in the process of getting the documents to the university that he contracted DHL, who charged N17,600 for the service, which he paid. He said the company’s officials promised to deliver the items within a week.

The plaintiff stated that, hoping that everything would go as planned, he proceeded to make travel and accommodation plans, including buying air tickets for his trip to and from the Philippines.

He averred that he was surprised when, weeks after the transaction, the university‘s Registry called to inform him that the documents were not delivered, a development that later caused him the admission, having incurred huge expenses.

Etuk ssid the firm did not only fail in delivering the documents since June 19, when he handed its officials the documents, it has not been unable to account for them despite his several demands on them.

The plaintiff, who accused the firm of negligence and breach of contract, is praying the court to declare, among others, that there is a valid and subsisting contract between him and the courier firm for the delivery of a parcel containing the original copies of the plaintiff’s certificates to the university in the Philippines.

He also seeks a declaration that DHL breached its obligation under the contract, and was negligent when it failed to deliver the documents to the varsity and has been unable to account for them.

Etuk is claiming from DHL, N2million as the amount he lost in school fees, flight ticket, accommodation, among others; N50,000 in general damages for the alleged breach of contract and N50,000 in exemplary damages for the defendant’s alleged negligence.

The respondents are yet to file their defence.

EPITOME AND ABSTRACT OF TITLE

The process of sale of land also involves a period where the title of the owner of the property is investigated to know whether it is legal, original and genuine.

Investigation and deducing of title involves a search at different registry where land instrument are registered to trace the title document of the vendor in other to deduce the title of the property.

In Conveyancing Act states, the law prescribes, the length of years for deducing title to be a minimum of 40 years. However, a legal title free from any encumbrance is a good title and it is immaterial that there is a minor defect in the title of the vendor provided such defect does not go to the root of the title, it may be cured by indemnity offered by the vendor.

Abstract of title is a written account, arranged in a chronological order of the contents of tittle deeds and other documents relating to a particular property.

Epitome of title contains date of the document, names of the parties therein, the event and its nature which relates to land. it is often resorted to as  result of simple method of deed registration in Nigeria.

Under Registration of Titles Law, abstract or epitome of title may not be necessary as the state upon registration of title, guarantee the vendor's title.

The Property and Conveyancing Law requires that the root of title should be traced to not more than 30 years back while the Vendor and Purchaser Act 1874 stipulates 40 years for other states.

Section 130 of the Evidence Act states that recitals in a deed which is 20 years old at the date of the contract, unless proved to be inaccurate, are deemed sufficient evidence of the truth of such fact. see also Bank v. Webb (1958)1 all E.R 126.

Advantages of Epitome of Title

·        It enables the purchaser to raise requisitions on title

·        The purchaser through epitome of title will know if there is any defect in the vendors title

·        The purchaser’s solicitor base his report on it

Elements of Good Root of Title

·        The title should disclose all the interests in the property both legal and equitable

·        It must not be subjected to higher interest than the one disclosed

·        It must sufficiently describe the property

·        It must cast no iota of doubt on the integrity of the title.

Examples of Good Root of Title

·        An assent

·        A deed of lease

·        A legal mortgage

·        Equitable mortgage by deed accompanied by memorandum under seal

·        Registered titles

·        Certificate of title

·        Deed of assignment

Examples of Bad Root of Title

·        Power of attorney

·        A lease agreement

·        Equitable mortgage

·        A conveyance subject to mortgage

·        Certificate of Occupancy; this is not a conclusive proof of title, but a conclusive evidence of proof of a good title., its becomes a good root of title:

·        When its granted by state

·        Customary owners under deemed grant

·        Buyers from the original owner

How to Investigate or Search for Title to Land

Purchaser's solicitor may verify the epitome or abstract of title through the following ways;

·        Register of title in the registration district

·        Search in the appropriate land registry, companies registry and probate registry.

·        Investigation of court judgement and orders

·        Inspection of original document of title

·        Investigating traditional title of the owner

·        Physical inspection of the property

Procedure to Conduct a Search

·        Letter written or forms filled depending on jurisdiction

·        Depose to affidavit in Lagos

·        Attach two passport photograph

·        Payment of search fees..

DEFUNCT GULF BANK DIRECTOR GETS N500M BAIL

Temporary reprieve came the way of a Briton, Gareth Mervyn Wilcox and four others accused of defrauding the defunct Gulf Bank Plc of N15.1billion as the Federal High Court in Lagos granted them a N500million on Monday.

The Federal Government arraigned them on 21 counts of alleged conversion of the bank’s funds for personal use, but they pleaded not guilty to all the counts.

The prosecution said they “converted/appropriated” the sum in the name of loans and overdraft facilities to various companies without appropriate accounting records.

Part of the money was said to have been used to finance a non-existing refinery.

Wilcox was charged along with Prince Johnson Adekunle Adeyeba, a firm, Ibom Power Company; LYK Engineering Company Limited and Uche Uwechia.

Adeyeba is a former director and majority shareholder of both Gulf Bank and Ibom Power Company; Wilcox was the managing director of both Ibom Power Company and LYK Engineering; while Uwechia is a former Company Secretary and Legal Adviser at Gulf Bank and allegedly aided Adeyeba in the perpetration of the alleged fraud.

They allegedly “converted/appropriated” a total of $55.3million and over N3.7billion belonging to the bank.

Ruling on bail applications by the defendants’ counsel, Justice Mohammed Yinusa granted Wilcox and Adeyeba bail in the sum of N200million each.

The defendants are to produce two sureties in the sum of N200million each, and the sureties must be resident within the court’s jurisdiction.

The sureties are to swear to an affidavit of means and must own property within the court’s jurisdiction, the judge ruled.

In addition, the sureties must produce evidence of tax payment in the last three years.

The defendants must also deposit their international passports with the court’s registrar.

“They must give an undertaking not to travel outside the country without leave of court,” Justice Yinusa added.

Meanwhile, the fifth defendant, Uwechia, was granted bail for N100million with two sureties in like sum. Other terms of the bail granted the second and third defendants also apply to him.

Justice Yinusa picked February 26, 2014 for commencement of trial.