…As Court revokes Orji Kalu’s bail***
A Federal High Court in Lagos on Monday reserved ruling until December 3, on a motion seeking final forfeiture to the federal government of the sum of N2.2 billion recovered from a former Chief of Air Staff, Adesola Amosu.
Justice Mojisola Olatoregun reserved the date for ruling, after listening to arguments from counsel to parties in the motion on notice
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the court had issued an interim order of forfeiture of the sum, on June 14, following an exparte motion filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
Joined as respondents in the suit are Mr Amosu, and a company, Solomon Enterprises Ltd.
The Commission had argued that the sums were reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities.
Justice Olatoregun had also issued an interim order for a temporary forfeiture of N190 million recovered from a former Air Force Director of Finance and Budget, Air Commodore Olugbenga Gbadebo.
The court had further ordered a temporary forfeiture of N101 million recovered from Solomon Enterprises, a company linked to Amosu.
The judge had then directed the EFCC to publish the interim orders in two national dailies, for the respondents or any interested party, to show cause why a final order of forfeiture should not be made.
On Monday, Rotimi Oyedepo appeared for the EFCC, while Norrison Quakers (SAN) announced appearance for an interested party in the suit (Jacob Adigun).
Bolaji Ayorinde announced appearance for the first and second respondent.
Moving his motion for final order, EFCC counsel, Mr Oyedepo, informed the court that his motion was dated October 24, seeking a court’s order for final forfeiture of the sum.
He said that his application was supported by an affidavit deposed to by one Tosin Owobo, and adopted same, urging the court to order a final forfeiture of the sum.
Arguing his motion further, Mr Oyedepo told the court that intelligence reports revealed that the respondent stacked crime proceeds in his account, and had directed his aide to remove the sum $10.5 million.
He said that the respondents had not been able to show how they legitimately earned these sums of money, which the EFCC is seeking to be permanently forfeited to the Government.
He argued that the law empowers the EFCC to bring an application for forfeiture of funds, where it reasonably suspects same to be proceeds of crime or an unlawful act, adding that its present motion was brought on that premise.
Besides, Mr Oyedepo argued that the interested party has not been able to show how the funds sought to be forfeited, affects him or will affect, adding that having failed to show this cause, the court should discountenance his averment.
He urged the court to grant the final orders as sought.
On his part, Mr Quakers, counsel to the interested party, moved his application before the court, seeking to set aside the interim orders, on grounds of “suppression of material facts”
He told the court that the case before it, was one in which the same respondents had already been charged and undergoing trial before a brother judge, and in which there also exist a court’s order, preserving the subject matter of the suit, pending conclusion of trial.
He said that sufficient facts had already been deposed to in his affidavit, to show sufficient interest of the interested party in the suit, as it is clear that he Incorporated the company known as Delfina.
Citingn Article 54 of the UN Convention on Corruption, counsel argued that where a person whose property is sought to be forfeited, is unavailable to show cause, then the court is free to make an order.
He argued that this was not the case in the matter before the court, as material facts has been placed before the court to show cause on the part of the interested party.
Mr Quakers urged the court to decline the order for final forfeiture, as the grounds stated in his affidavit to show cause, were quite weighty, and same had not been controverted.
Meanwhile, Mr Ayorinde, also urged the court to refuse a grant of final forfeiture as moved by the EFCC.
He argued that the proceedings for final forfeiture, does not envisage a situation where the property sought to be forfeited, is a subject matter before another court.
According to him, it will be over- reaching, where for instance, the trial court, discharges same respondents of the criminal charges before it.
He argued that having subjected the respondents to the charges pending before the trial court, the application for final forfeiture ought to fail and be dismissed.
Mr Ayorinde also informed the court that the prosecution had no application for extension of time, concerning the 14 days period after the interim orders were made.
“The motion for final forfeiture is coming late in the day, and ought not to be granted,” he said
Besides, the counsel argued, the EFCC was not without remedy; since even if they fail in the instant suit, they can still continue with the charge at the trial court.
He, urged the court to refuse the order for final forfeiture.
Justice Olatoregun has reserved ruling until December 3.
In a counter affidavit deposed to by an EFCC operative, Danladi, the commission alleged that while in office, the respondents diverted huge sums of money from the Nigerian Air force accounts, to purchase properties both within and outside the country.
He said that Mr Amosu who was appointed Chief of Air Staff on January 16, 2014, had in the course of his service, received budgetary provisions in the sum of N4.5 billion, from Patrick Akpobolokemi, a former Director General of the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA).
The sum was said to be for Maritime Security Support, pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Nigerian Air force and NIMASA.
The Commission averred that part of the sums were utilised by the respondent for personal gains.
In the meantime, a Court has revoked the bail granted ex-Abia State Governor, Orji Uzor Kalu, for failure to appear for proceedings.
Hearing in the trial of Kalu for an alleged fraud of N7.65bn was stalled last Monday due to the absence of the ex-governor from court.
Kalu’s lawyer, Prof. Awa Kalu (SAN), told Justice Mohammed Idris at the Federal High Court in Lagos that his client was away in Germany for a surgical operation.
He added that the ex-governor had been advised by his doctors to remain in Germany for some time to recuperate.
The defence counsel said counsel for the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Mr Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), was aware of the development and urged Justice Idris to further adjourn the case.
But the EFCC prosecutor, Jacobs, said he was surprised at Kalu’s absence from court, adding that he did not know if or when the ex-governor obtained the court’s permission to travel out.
Jacobs noted that having submitted his passport to the court as part of his bail conditions, Kalu must always apply to the court for the passport whenever he wished to travel.
Describing the ex-governor’s absence from court as an attempt to frustrate the case, Jacobs urged Justice Idris to interpret Kalu’s absence to mean that he had jumped bail.
“I am not aware when the 1st defendant wanted to travel. We only got to know that the 1st defendant travelled abroad for medical treatment through his media aide, one Kunle Oyewunmi.
“Things must be done in accordance with the law. In my own view, what happened is that the 1st defendant has jumped bail. This is an attempt to further frustrate this trial because no application was made to the court to travel.
“I urge Your Lordship to treat the absence of the 1st defendant as that he has jumped bail,” Jacobs said.
Responding, however, the defence counsel urged Justice Idris to discountenance Jacob’s argument, saying as of when Kalu travelled out, the court had adjourned the case sine die (indefinitely).
Ruling on the lawyers’ submissions, Justice Idris noted that it was true that the matter was adjourned sine die on September 27, 2018 but Kalu was on November 2 served with a hearing notice that the case had been scheduled for Monday.
The judge also noted that the court received a mail confirming Kalu’s treatment arrangement, but he said the defence counsel failed to attach any medical report to guide the court as to Kalu’s post-surgery treatment.
Justice Idris said in the circumstance, he would, in the interest of justice, adjourn the case for the last time, stressing that Kalu must return from Germany within seven days and appear before the court.
The judge ruled, “I have always stated that every citizen of this country is entitled to and has the right to seek medical treatment abroad. This right is guaranteed by the constitution, the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is an inalienable right.
“However, this right has exceptions; therefore, in exercising this right due regard must be had for the law and due process.
“Apart from the mail confirming the treatment arrangement of the 1st defendant, the defence counsel should have obtained a medical report on the condition of the 1st defendant post-surgery. This would have properly guided the court in the proceedings of today.
“However, in the light of the entirety of this case and in the interest of justice, I am prepared to grant to the 1st defendant a final adjournment in respect of this matter.
“In the light of the provisions of the ACJA, I shall not adjourn for more than seven days from today. It is, therefore, hereby directed that the 1st defendant shall return to the country within seven days from today’s date for the hearing of this matter.”
The matter was adjourned till Monday, November 12, 2018 for continuation of trial; but as Kalu failed to appear, his bail was revoked.
