James Ibori
The purported letter from the trial judge in the Federal High Court, Asaba, Delta State in the matter of FRN vs. Cheif James Onanefe Ibori and others to a trial court in London did not happen after all, but is only a figment of some peoples imagination; so said Barrister Emeka Arinze, the legal counsel to the former governor of Delta State, Mr James Ibori.
Furthermore, information available to us seems to indicate that it was a London Lawyer that wrote Mr. Arinze, who then replied on the strength of the letter from Asaba Court, but he attached that relevant letter (below) from the Registrar of Asaba Federal High Court; “that is what they claim came from the Asaba Judge”, An Ibori associate emphasized.
In a strongly worded rebuttal to Justice Idris Legbo (GCON), Chief Justice of the Federation Supreme Court of Nigeria titled, FRN Vs. Cheif James Onanefe Ibori and others; Petition Against Honourable Justice M. Awokulehin of The Federal High Court, Asaba. Barr Arinze stated that the Asaba Judge “did not write any letter to any court, whether in Nigeria or the UK”.
The learned counsel said “to put the facts and records straight on the relationship between the London courts trying Udoamaka Okonkwo and others on similar charges in Nigeria and the transmission of documents”; any letter written, or any correspondence shared was between him and the Asaba Court, and between him and a London Lawyer.
To get to the bottom of the matter, Elombah.com asked for and got copies of the correspondences between Barrister Emeka Arinze of Emeka Arinze & co and the Federal High Court, Asaba, Delta State.
In the first letter (posted here) from Arinze to the Asaba Court written on 23rd Sept 2009, As the solicitor representing the accused persons, he asked of the Asaba Judge; “1. When the briefs of the parties were filed and exchanged, 2. When was the matter adjourned to and for what purpose?
In the courts reply (posted here) on September 30, 2009, the Federal High Court Registrar replied; “Be it confirmed that the prosecution filed their brief on the 17/8/09 while Counsel to the Accused Persons filed theirs on 4/8/09 and both parties have duly exchanged their briefs. On 6th August, 2009, the matter was further adjourned to 26th October, 2009 to enable all the parties in the case (the Prosecution and defence) to adopt their respective briefs.
Recall that in the letter allegedly written to the trial court in London, the Southwark Crown Court was said to be informed that the case at the Federal High Court, Asaba would be disposed off at the next adjourned date on October 26, 2009. But according to an Aid to the former governor of Delta State, James Ibori, “if there was no letter to any court, there would be no contents in a non-existent letter”.
In the said rebuttal to Justice Idris Legbo (GCON), Chief Justice of the Federation Supreme Court of Nigeria, Arinze said in order “to put the facts and records straight on the relationship between the London courts trying Udoamaka Okonkwo and others on similar charges in Nigeria and the transmission of documents, the counsel to James Ibori, Barrister Emeka Arinze of Emeka Arinze & co said “the transmission of documents initiated and concluded by me”.
Arinze was reacting to a series of petitions against the Honourable Justice M. Awokulehin of the federal High Court in Asaba, presiding over the trial of Chief James Onanefe Ibori and others, including the recent publication in the Vanguard Newspaper published the 2nd of November 2009, credited to Chief Edwin Clark.
In the Vanguard publication, reference was made to the allegation that the said Judge wrote directly to a judge in London in a matter involving FRN Vs James Onanife Ibori and others, which said matter is pending before his lordship.
But Barr Arinze said that “Sometime in September 2009, I was briefed and my services retained by Chief James Onanefe Ibori for himself and for all the accused persons to join the defence team in the on-going trial at the Federal High Court Asaba, Delta State and where the need arises to relate with his legal team in London where a similar trail is going on in a London court.
He continued; “To be fully acquainted with the development of the trail, I wrote a letter to The Federal High Court, Asaba dated the 23rd September, 2009 seeking confirmation of the stage of the proceedings. I specifically required confirmation on when briefs were filed and exchanged by all the parties; the date to which the matter was adjourned and the purpose for which it was adjourned. A copy of the letter is enclosed for ease of reference.
“On 30th September, 2009 I received a reply from the Registry of the Federal High Court Asaba confirming that the prosecution filed their brief on 17th August, 2009 and the accused persons filed on 4th August, 2009. The Registrar’s letter also confirmed that the matter was on 6th August, 2009 adjourned to 26th October, 2009 for adoption of briefs by the respective Counsel. A copy of the said letter is also enclosed for ease of reference. In furtherance of my legal services, and at the request made by Andrew Trollop QC, the head of the London legal team representing the 2nd accused person in similar charges in a London Court with regard to the state of the matter involving the 2nd accused in the Federal High Court Asaba, I duly informed him of the progress of the case in Asaba.
I also forwarded to him by email the communication that transpired between me and the Registry of the Federal High Court Asaba. I know as a fact and having been informed by the 2nd accused person that, other than my communication with the defence team in London, no other communication was transmitted from the Federal High Court in Asaba in respect of the said trail to the London Court. The said publication therefore, credited to Chief Edwin Clark (and or any other in that respect) is a complete misrepresentation of the facts and cannot be used as a pivot to impugn the integrity of the Honourable Justice M. Awokulehin of the federal High Court, Asaba. It should therefore be discountenanced”, He concluded.
It would be recalled that the Southwark Crown Court adjourned their sitting in London to enable the Asaba Court to finish their sitting saying that the outcome of the case in Asaba have a bearing on the London trial.
Critics had claimed that the London Judge so ruled because of the “unusual intervention” by the Asaba Judge.
It was also alleged that Justice Mercel Awokulehin wrote to the London Metropolitan Police over the trial of three associates of former Delta State Governor, James Ibori.
Justice Awokulehin who is handing Ibori’s trial for alleged money laundering at the Federal High Court, Asaba, allegedly said, in the letter tendered by the defence legal team, that the London case is similar to that before him, and that the absence of one Miss Udoamaka Okorouliwo, who is supposed to stand trial with Ibori, is affecting proceedings at Asaba.
But an Ibori associate maintained that it was a London Lawyer that wrote Mr. Arinze, who then replied on the strength of the Asaba Court latter but then he attached that relevant letter from the Registrar of Asaba Federal High Court; “that is what they claim came from the Asaba Judge”, he emphasized.
On the matter coming up on November 6, 2009, the Ibori legal team expects the Asaba Judge to quash and dismiss the 170-count charge.
The Ibori versus EFCC case was reassigned to the Federal High Court, Asaba as directed in a judgment by the Kaduna Court of Appeal. That landmark ruling stopped EFCC’s habit of choosing a judge to take a particular case to, and the Federal law enforcement agencies’ penchant for arraigning suspects outside the jurisdiction where an alleged crime was committed – just because the Federal High Court system is one.
It would be recalled that on the last sitting of the court, before the Presiding Judge, Justice Marcel Awokulehin, Ibori’s legal team has applied that the suit be dismissed on certain grounds.
At the last session, Dauda SAN, submitted on points of law that “This is not a corruption trial or misappropriation of state funds. All the accused persons are charged for money laundering and there is a specific legislation for money laundering”.
He argued that “a unique characteristic of the Money Laundering Act of 2003 or 2004 is that it envisages a predicate offence and in section 14 (1) of the Money Laundering Act 2003/2004, the opening sentence there criminalises any person who transfers money gotten from narcotics, illegal act or any other crime.
“The illegal act also presupposes that it must also be a criminal act.” Dauda continued, and stated that throughout the proof of evidence there is no evidence of any illegal act, criminal act, looting of state treasury and no predicate offence. That for money laundering trial to take place, there must be proof of evidence of illegal enrichment or Criminal act. That for a money laundering trial to proceed, there must be proof of a predicate crime and none exists in this case. And if none exists, then there is no basis to proceed.
Continuing, Dauda said that EFCC’s lead counsel, Isiyaku SAN in his written address referred to pieces of evidence of “unconventional payments tagged security vote” and payments from “contingency funds”.
To this Dauda argued that “the fact that a payment is unconventional does not make it criminal. He said the evidence referred to by EFCC’s Lead Counsel showed that the so-called unconventional payments were actually backed by vouchers.
Calling attention to what he called a “delicate submission”, Dauda said that “when a law or act talks about criminal acts that law is always specific. But when a conduct is tagged unconventional as basis for prosecution, such conduct should be linked to a written law.
Dauda supported his stand with Section 36 (12) of the 1999 Constitution, saying that this has not been met as an offence is supposed to be defined and has to be defined in a written law. This constitutional requirement has not been met. He urged the Court to quash all 170 counts without exception and to discharge all the accused persons and ask them to go”.
Mr. Ibrahim Isiyaku, SAN countered on EFCC’s behalf: “Our address is dated 11 August 2009, and we filed it on the 17th. We adopt and rely on the same”.
He said that though the Money Laundering of 2003/2004 is linked to proceeds from illicit drugs and criminal act but the “ejusdem generis” rule is not applicable to section 14 (1) of the Money Laundering ( Prohibition) Act.
He said that that rule can only matter where there are general words following particular and specific words and that the general words should be construed and confined to the specified words. He also quoted three authorities to back his assertion (Buhari versus Yusuf 2003, Action Congress Versus INEC, 2007) the Supreme Court decision (in SHELL Petroleum Development Company vs. Federal Board of Inland Revenue 1996).
Ibori’s legal team believes that based on the aforementioned, if they could extricate Ibori from the claws of the Asaba Judge, the proceedings at the UK Court will collapse like a pack of cards.
One of his counsel queried; “If Ibori’s case is strong, that there is no evidence before the court to prove corruption, then the case will be thrown out for you cannot be accused of money laundering, without the prosecution’s first having to prove that the money in question was gotten in an illicit way – or there would be no need to launder money from a clean source”.
“If EFCC has been able to show prima facia case of corruption, or if the LAW says that you could convict on Money Laundering without first proving that the money came from a dirty source, in this case, corruption, then surely, EFCC has no case and Nigerians have been misled”, he added.
But Nigerians wonder why the trial in London has been stayed to allow the Nigerian case to be concluded. they also wonder why the dismissal of the 170-count charge in Nigeria will lead to the automatic dismissal of the case fixed for November 9, 2009.
Many found it repugnant, that a UK Court should have to depend and wait on the Asaba Court ruling before they could proceed.
Contacted on the issue, a Nigerian Lawyer asked rhetorically:
“Was it legal for the London court to have waited for the Asaba case? If so why”?
He continued: “The issue which many have refused to understand is that the cases are related.
Second, the London Judges have all along been asking about the progress of the Nigerian case, and the MET Police informed the court that the case is dead, that it would not even begin until 2011 or so. But when there was evidence that the case has advanced considerably, the London court adjoined to see if there would be any progress by the time hearing resumes on the 9th of September”.
In another development, a report that the Nigerian Judicial Council (NJC) – the national body saddled with sanctioning errant judicial officials – has sent a query to Justice Marcel Awokulehin, the Judge handling James Ibori’s case at the Federal High Court Asaba, Delta State could not be immediately verified.
The queried was said to be based on a petition written to the NJC by the Coalition against Corrupt Leaders (CACOL), on October 19, made available to this medium. The query from CACOL was said to have been sent to the NJC by Justice Daniel Dantsoho Abutu, the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court.
In its petition, CACOL had described Awokulehin’s misconduct, in which he caused a letter to be written to a trial court in London, knowing full well there is no provision either in the nation’s Criminal Code Act or its Criminal Procedure Act for exchange of letters between a trial court in Nigeria and a foreign court, as “unprecedented in the history of the legal profession in Nigeria.”
The group in their petition copied to the Presidency, the President of the Senate, Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, expressed fears in the credibility of the trial judge in the matter as it concerns the former Governor of the Oil-rich Delta State.
According to the Coalition, which claims to be devoted to anti-corruption crusade to free Nigeria from the pangs of unbridled corruption, the trial Judge was poorly handling the issue based on their monitoring of the progress recorded in the prosecution of anti corruption cases, especially those involving politically exposed persons, like Ibori.
“We have being monitoring the case from the Federal High Court, Kaduna , and the Federal High Court, Asaba, Delta State . It is common knowledge that the Attorney-General of the Federation has been using his position to frustrate the trial of Chief Ibori both in Nigeria and in the United Kingdom,” the group stated.
The Chairman of the group, Debo Adeniran who signed the petition, stated that the AGF has in the past shown bias interest in the matter and has taken actions that seemingly made him culpable as a biased AGF.
“In order to prevent Chief Ibori from being brought to book the Honorable Attorney-General of the Federation has caused the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to take the following decisions:
All the witnesses in the case have been removed from the EFCC and transferred to different locations all over the country. That Mr. Ibrahim Magu, a serving police officer, who coordinated the investigation of the case, has been suspended from the Police for over a year and that the EFCC lawyer, Rotimi Jacobs Esq., the counsel who handled the matter at the Federal High Court, Kaduna and at the Court of Appeal, has been removed from the case.
And the appeal filed at Supreme Court by EFCC against the decision of the court of appeal on the movement of venue of trial of Ibori’s case from Kaduna to Asaba was discontinued without any reason,”. Adeniran stated.
The group also alleged perversion of Justice by the judiciary, stating that the role of the trial judge was unprecedented in the annals legal activities in Nigeria.
The letter in part read: “Now the judiciary seems to have been co-opted into the whole intrigues to pervert justice in this case having regard to the role of the trial judge in the Federal High Court, Asaba. The misconduct of his Lordship is unprecedented in the history of the legal profession in Nigeria.
We crave your indulgence by reporting to you the gross misconduct committed by the Judge handling the case of FRN V. James Ibori & Anor. At the Federal High Court, Holden at Asaba, Delta State.”
The group gave details of the alleged gross misconduct of the learned judge as follows:
“The trial judge in the Federal High Court, Asaba, in Delta State caused a letter to be written to a trial court in London sometimes in October 2009.
That in the said letter, the trial court in London was informed that the case at the Federal High Court, Asaba would be disposed off at the next adjourned date on October 26, 2009.
Also that the trial judge in the Federal Court caused the case to be brought forward by calling lawyers on phone to appear before him on October 12, 2009. The group also said the application of the Accused challenging the 170-count charge was taken on October 12, 2009.
While ruling has been fixed for November 6, 2009.And In line with the information passed to the London judge we have confirmed that the 170-count charge will be dismissed on November 6, 2009, since the trial in London has been stayed to allow the Nigerian case to be concluded the dismissal of the 170-count charge in Nigeria will lead to the automatic dismissal of the case fixed for November 9, 2009,” the group stated in their letter to the presidency.
The group however urged concerned authorities, especially the National Judicial Council, to as a matter of urgency, call the trial judge to order and transfer the case from him to another judge in the Federal High Court without any further delay.
They also want the President, Nigerian Bar Association (NBA] to use his office to investigate the circumstances surrounding the letter purportedly written to London by the Federal High Court, Asaba. Having disclosed to a foreign court in advance that a 170-count charge will be dismissed, National Daily gathered that it was based on this claims, the Chief Justice queried Awokulehin and gave him two weeks to respond to the grievous allegations.
It would be recalled that the Federal High Court in Asaba was created earlier in the year by Dan Abutu’s successor, Justice Abdullahi Mustaphha, with the alleged special funding from the Delta State government, to cater to Ibori’s desires. The court building was said to have been purchased from a serving Delta State commissioner for Lands and Survey, Barrister Raymond Guana, who served as Ibori’s Special Adviser on local governments while he was governor of Delta State.
In a desperate attempt to extricate himself from the court matter Ibori allegedly appointed the prosecutor for the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Mr. Ibrahim Isyaku, as lead counsel as Ibori’s case became the first and only known case being prosecuted by Isyaku on behalf of the EFCC. Sahara Reporters had in earlier publications revealed a memo said to have been written by him to the EFCC and the AGF’s office as an independent legal adviser. In the memo, which was written while Ibori’s trial was going on before the Federal High Court in Kaduna, where he dismissed it as not strong.
It was reported that One of Ibori’s lawyers, Austin Alegeh (SAN), was identified as a front for the Attorney General of the Federation, Mike Aondoakaa. Mr. Alegeh was said to be Aondoakaa’s classmate
A source pointed out that Awokulehin who was nominated by Justice Ibrahim Auta. Auta , met Ibori during the Abacha regime when along with Auta and Abacha’s chief security officer, Al Mustapha, he acted as a man Friday in providing logistics to the tribunal that eventually sentenced Ken Saro-Wiwa to death by hanging . Auta acted as the chairman of that tribunal. Awokulehin was a former judicial officer at the Federal Ministry of Justice.
Critics allege that the purported query given to Awokulehin was to pacify the protesters of the judge, to look as if the CJ has done something whereas in actual sense of it was a farce.
Some lawyers had observed a hole in the NJC’s acclaimed “query,” noting that the accused judge was given a run-way track of two weeks to respond to the serious allegations of bias, incompetence and misconduct.
It was learnt that by the time the judge gets to respond, he would possibly have dismissed Ibori’s case on November 6, the date Awokulehin abruptly chose after he cancelling an earlier hearing scheduled for October 26, 2009.
The Asaba trial continues on November 6, while the UK trial continues on November 9.
Nigerians keenly wait for the special court in Asaba to render its judgement in the case of Ibori vs. the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as the Ibori saga continues.
www.elombah.com