Tag: Court

 

Flowerbudnews
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), on Monday, arraigned the Binance Holdings Limited’s executive, Tigran Gambaryan, on alleged money laundering charge following the dismissal of his objection by a Federal High Court, Abuja.

Gambaryan was arraigned by the EFCC on five-count charge before Justice Emeka Nwite.

He was arraigned alongside the company and Nadeem Anjarwalla (now at large).

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the anti-graft agency had filed a money laundering charge against Binance, Gambaryan and Anjarwalla as 1st to 3rd defendants respectively.

Anjarwalla was said to have fled Nigeria after his escape from lawful custody on March 22.

In the five-count charge dated and filed on March 28 by the anti-graft commission, the trio is being accused of money laundering to the tune of $35,400,000.

Gambaryan, however, pleaded not guilty to the counts, while a non-guilty plea was also entered for Binance.

The arraignment followed the earlier dismissal of Gambaryan’s preliminary objection by Justice Nwite.

NAN reports that the judge had, on Thursday, fixed today for the ruling on the Binance official’s objection, raised by his lawyer, Mark Mordi, SAN.

Mordi had disagreed with the EFCC’s lawyer, Ekele Iheanacho’s application for the charge to be read to Gambaryan.

Mordi argued that Binance, listed as 1st defendant, ought to have been duly served, before Gambaryan could take his plea.

The senior lawyer had insisted that since it was a joint charge, the company must be served before his client could be arraigned.

He said that his client was not a representative of the cryptocurrency firm in Nigeria.

But Iheanacho disagreed with Mordi, saying since Gambaryan represented Binance in Nigeria and that it is the law that he can be served on behalf of the firm.

According to him, if the company does not show up, a non-guilty plea can be entered for it in accordance with Section 478 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.

He added that Gambaryan’s statement attached to the proof of evidence showed that he is an official of Binance in the country

Delivering the ruling on Monday, Justice Nwite agreed with Iheanacho’s submission.

The judge held that from Gambaryan’s affidavit attached to his bail application, the American citizen categorically averred that he was representing Binance in Nigeria.

The judge, consequently, dismissed the preliminary objection and ordered him to enter his plea.

While Justice Nwite adjourned his bail application until April 18, he fixed May 2 for trial.(NAN)(wwww.nannews.ng)

 

 

Flowerbudnews

A Federal High Court, Abuja, on Thursday, fixed April 8 for ruling on an objection raised by Tigran Gambaryan, a Binance Holdings Limited executive, challenging the competence of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC)’s charge.

Gambaryan, through his lawyer, Mark Mordi, SAN, opposed the move to be arraigned before Justice Emeka Nwite, insisting that the EFCC, having not served Binance, listed as 1st defendant in the charge, cannot arraign him.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the anti-graft agency had filed a money laundering charge against Binance, Gambaryan and Nadeem Anjarwalla (now at large) as 1st to 3rd defendants respectively.

Anjarwalla was said to have fled Nigeria after his escape from lawful custody on March 22.

In the five-count charge dated and filed on March 28 by the anti-graft commission, the trio is being accused of money laundering to the tune of $35,400,000.

When the matter was called on Thursday for the defendants to take their plea, only Gambaryan was in court.

The EFCC’s lawyer, Ekele Iheanacho, informed the court that the matter was slated for arraignment and that the defendants had been served for them to take their plea.

But Mordi disagreed with Iheanacho request.

He said the reading of the charge was premature because the charge was a joint one.

The senior lawyer argued that Iheanacho was duty bound to do the needful since Binance, listed as 1st defendant, had not been served.

He insisted that since it was a joint charge, the company must be duly served before his client could take his plea.

Responding, Iheanacho disagreed with Mordi, saying since Gambaryan is the representative of Binance in Nigeria, it is the law that he can be served on behalf of the firm.

According to him, if the company does not show up, a non-guilty plea can be entered for it in accordance with Section 478 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.

“My lord, we can proceed with the trial when he is the representative of the 1st defendant in Nigeria,” he said.

Mordi, however, argued that Iheanacho conveniently omitted the preceding section to Section 478 cited.

He argued that by Section 477 of the same Act, Binance had to authorise Gambaryan to represent it before the service of the charge could be said to have been duly served.

Besides, he said each of the defendants ought to be served separately.

“Section 478 cannot be read without Section 477. My humble submission is that due process has not been followed my lord,” he said.

The EFCC counsel argued that despite Mordi’s stand that he was not briefed by the company, his submission suggested that he was holding brief for it.

He said the anti-graft agency attempted to serve the company through Gambaryan but he refused, saying he was not its representative.

Iheanacho, who said the proof of evidence attached to the charge confirmed that Gambaryan is Binance representative in Nigeria, urged the court to discountenance Mordi’s argument

Besides, he argued that refusal of service of court processes also amounted to the service of the documents.

He said Mordi himself confirmed that though Gambaryan was duly served, he refused the service.

“Therefore, it is not in the position of the counsel for the 2nd defendant (Gambaryan), who has not announced appearance for the 1st defendant (Binance) to seek to challenge the arraignment on the ground that the 1st defendant has not been served because the 2nd defendant was not briefed by the 1st defendant,” he said.

Mordi however denied that he admitted true service was effected on Gambaryan.

He said based on the community reading of Sections 123, 477 and 478 of ACJA , 2015, a mandatory process must occur where a criminal proceedings are triggered.

He said Gambaryan was neither a Binance director, one of the partners nor company secretary.

According to him, he does not reside in Nigeria to qualify as an agent within jurusidction.

But Iheanacho countered his submission, insisting that Gambaryan is the chief agent of Binance in the country.

He argued that based on the provisions of the law, though the firm had no physical presence in the country, its representative can be served.

“It is a settled principle of law that the law does not allow or command a party to do an impossibility

“So a party who has no physical presence in Nigeria must have a physical agent in Nigeria.

“The good thing about the law is that it allows for substituted service

“Section 124 provides for a substituted service on an individual and not on a corporation. The learner silk has not studied the section well

“Therefore, Section 123(b)(IV) has been complied with since the chief agent is in court.

“So my lord, service on the 1st defendant which he refused to accept is a proper service on the 1st defendant,” he argued.

He further argued that Mordi cannot be holding brief for Binance having not appeared for it

“So we urge you to discountenabce all the submissions made by counsel. They lack capacity to do so

“We urge you to enter a plea of non-guilty for the 1st defendant and proceed a trial in this matter,” he prayed.

Justice Nwite, who adjourned the matter until April 8 for ruling, ordered Gambaryan to be remanded in EFCC’s custody pending the arraignment.(NAN)(www.nannews.ng)

 

Flowerbudnews
The detained President, Miyetti Allah Kautal Hore, Bello Bodejo, has told a Federal High Court, Abuja that he had no criminal record.

Bodejo, who was arrested on the alleged raising up an armed militia in detriment of the nation’s unity, told Justice Inyang Ekwo in a motion for bail filed by his lawyer, Ahmed Raji, SAN.

In the motion with charge number: FHC/ABJ/CR/141/2024 date and filed March 28, he sought an order admitting him to bail on liberal terms pending the hearing and determination of the case against him.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Bodejo, who was arrested on Jan. 23 in Malia, Nasarawa State and kept in the custody of the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA), was arraigned before Justice Ekwo on March 22.

He was arraigned on three-count charge bordering on terrorism.

Giving nine grounds why he should be granted bail, the detained Miyetti Allah president said the offences with which he was charged were bailable ones.

“The defendant/applicant has no criminal record whatsoever,” he said.

According to him, his reputation attest not only to his reliability and credibility and also to the fact that he will not jump bail if this application Is granted.

He said he had “suffered from grave ill-health; an exceptional circumstance for the grant of bail.”

Bodejo argued that by Section 36 (5) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), he is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Besides, he said the charge preferred against him did not disclose a prima facie case against him.

He told the court that he would not interfere with the investigation or further investigation of the allegation(s) against him.

The defendant, who pledged to always be punctual in attending his trial, said he was ready to provide responsible sureties as may be required by the court.

But in a counter affidavit deposed to by Noma Wando, a litigation clerk in the Department of Public Prosecutions, Federal Ministry of Justice, he urged the court to dismiss Bodejo’s bail plea.

He said Bodejo was standing trial for terrorism-related offences bothering on establishment of an ethnic militia in Nasarawa State, management and participation in activities connected with acts prejudicial to national security and public safety.

The official alleged that Bodejo also provided material support, assistance and transportation for activities connected with such acts contrary to Sections 29, 2(3)(g}(xii) and 12(a) and Section 2(3)(g)(xii), and 13 (2)(b) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.

He said after his arraignment, the court ordered that he should be remanded in DIA, ordered an accelerated hearing and fixed trial for May 27 to May 30.

Wando disagreed that Bodejo was suffering from any life-threatening health condition that cannot be managed at the DIA Medical Centre, Abuja.

He said that as a matter of fact the DIA is a next door neighbour to State House Medical Centre, Abuja “which boasts of the best of doctors and specialists and consultants.”

He said it can also cater for Bodejo’s medical need if need be, “despite the fact that he is not suffering from any life-threatening health condition that cannot be managed” at the DIA Medical Centre.

He said contrary to Bodejo’s averments, he was diagnosed with only high blood pressure which had since been managed effectively and efficiently by the centre.

Abubakar averred that the detained Miyetti Allah president would not suffer any injustice if the bail was not granted.

He said this was so because “the Federal Government’s holding centres and custodial centres have always ensured that the medical needs of persons in custody are met and they have always undertaken to ensure that whenever the occasion arises special medical treatment is available to their inmates.”

Upon resumed hearing on Wednesday, counsel, who appeared for Bodejo, Dr Sulaiman Usman, SAN, told the court that they had a bail application which was slated for hearing.

Usman, however, said that they were not ready to proceed with the motion due to the fact that the prosecution had just served on them their counter affidavit the previous day.

The senior lawyer said they would need more time to respond to the new issues raised in the counter affidavit.

The prosecution lawyer, Y. A Imana, did not opposed Usman’s plea for an adjournment.

Usman equally made an oral application seeking an order for Bodejo to be granted access to his lawyers, which he said was required by law.

He said the defendant ought to be afforded adequate time and facility to defend himself.

But Imana disagreed with Usman’s submission that Bodejo was not given access to his lawyers.

She said she was unaware of the allegation.

The lawyer said besides that the prosecution had ensured that the last order of the court directing that Bodejo should be given access to his doctor was complied with, the defendant’s lawyer confirmed to her that he visited him (defendant) in custody.(NAN)(www.nannews.ng)

 

Flowerbudnews

A Federal High Court, Abuja, on Wednesday, granted an interim order sought by the Department of State Service (DSS) to detain Emmanuel Osase, a Nigerian suspected to be a member of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) for 60 days.

Justice Inyang Ekwo gave the order after counsel for the DSS, A.A. Ugee, moved the ex-parte motion to the effect.

When the matter was called, Ugee informed the court of the application.

He said the motion ex-parte marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/409/2024 was brought pursuant to Section 66(1) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.

He prayed the court for an order enabling the security outfit to detain Osase for 60 days pending the conclusion of the investigation.

Justice Ekwo, who granted the application, adjourned until June 3 for report

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Osase, who was arrested on March 11, was accused of propagating the messages of the terrorist group, opposing democratic system of government in Nigeria and calling for terrorists attacks on Nigeria and it symbols of sovereignty.

In affidavit dated March 27 and deposed to by Ahmad Abubakar, a DSS operative, attached to the Legal Service Department, National Headquarters, Abuja, he averred that the release of the suspect could jeopardise investigation.

He said that Osase was arrested by a team of DSS “for alleged membership and propagation of Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) terrorist messages, including opposition to Democratic System of Government and the call for staging terrorists attacks against Nigeria State and its symbols of sovereignty;”

Abubakar stated that Osase was jailed five years for terrorism-related offences in France and was deported after the completion of his sentence.

He said that from the service’s preliminary investigation, Osase, who is an ex-convict, still engaged in terrorist activities which previously led to his conviction in France.

He said Osase appeared not to have renounced his terrorist ideologies, “as he continues to engage with the proscribed pro-ISIS online media group known as al-Alawn Media Foundation, whose main objectives is the creation and dissemination of terrorist content and the promotion of terrorist attacks against democratic systems of government such as Nigeria and the western governments, including their interests across the globe.”

He said the suspect, who was born in the Federal Capital Territory, “left Nigeria for France and never returned to Nigeria until his deportation after completion of five years jail term for acts of terrorism and attempt to join the Islamic State (IS) linked terrorist group, Friqat Al-Ghuraba (Group of Foreigners) in Syria.”

Abubakar said his activities constituted a potent threat to national security and corporate existence of Nigeria.

He said there was need for a thorough investigation of the suspect to ensure that he did not pose any security threat to Nigeria or the world at large.

According to him, the respondent is helping with vital Information that will lead to the arrest of other members who are still at large.

He said it would be in the interest of justice and national security to grant the application.(NAN)(www.nannews.ng)

 

Flowerbudnews
Mild drama continued at the Kogi Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Abuja on Monday as some witnesses disowned their depositions before the panel.

Four witnesses from Adavi Local Government Area of the state gave their evidence for the Social Democratic Party (SDP) before the three-member panel of justices, led by Justice Ado Birnin-Kudu.

The witnesses, when called, gave virtually the same narration regarding what transpired where they voted even though they were in different polling units during the Nov. 11, 2023 governorship poll.

The four witnesses, like the previous ones, adopted their witness depositions on oath.

However, during cross-examination by the defence counsel, they made claims different from what was in the witness depositions.

When shown their deposition, they disowned it, saying it was not written by them while also confirming that they were not polling agents but random voters.

One of the witnesses, Rufai Muhammed, who said he was from Adavi Local Government, stated in his deposition that there was no validly accredited voter for the said election.

Upon cross examination, however, he said he was validly accredited to vote and he voted.

When his attention was drawn to his witness deposition on oath, which said there was no validly accredited voter for the election that he witnessed, he denied the deposition, saying he did not write it.

Another witness, Yakubu AbdulAzeez, said he stood at a particular point throughout the voting period on election day observing the proceedings, and that it was from that point he saw that there was over-voting.

AbdulAzeez, who said he stood watching the voting process, however, could not stand during the tribunal hearing.

He told the panel that he had been suffering from a leg problem since 2008 and the panel directed that he should be given a seat.

Claiming that he stood for hours in a spot to monitor an election that took place in November 2023 thus became an issue of concern.

On his part, Hamza Abdul Azeez said he wrote a letter of complaint to the tribunal that there was over-voting.

But when asked how many votes each political party actually scored in his polling unit, he said he did not know.

The witnesses said their lawyers wrote their depositions for them, but added that they couldn’t remember the names of the lawyers.

The tribunal adjourned the matter until April 2 after Jibrin Okutepa, SAN, sought an adjournment.

While Chief Kanu Agabi, SAN, represented the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Ibrahim Sani Muhammed, SAN, appeared for Gov. Usman Ododo, and AbdulWahab Muhammed ,SAN, represented the All Progressives Congress (APC) at the sitting.

The witnesses who testified on Monday were Hamza Abdul Azeez, Said Muhammed, Yakubu Abdul Azeez and Rufai Muhammed, all from Adavi Local Government Area of Kogi.

It would be recalled that the SDP is challenging the victory of Gov. Ododo of the APC in the Nov. 11, 2023 governorship election in the state.(NAN)(www.nannews.ng)

 

Flowerbudnews

The absence of the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer (MD/CEO) of Duport Midstream Company Limited, Dr Akintoye Akindele, and his lawyer at a Lagos State High Court, on Wednesday, stalled the defamatory suit filed against Mr Oluwatosin Odusanya, a co-founder of the oil firm.

Though the plaintiff and his lawyer were not in court, the defendant, Odusanya, and his lawyer, Oludayo Ayeni, attended the sitting.

The matter, which was slated for case management conference before Justice Folake Oshin, however, could not proceed due to the absence of the duo.

Ayeni, in his oral application, prayed the court to strike out the matter for lack of diligent prosecution.

Justice Oshin, who was not inclined to grant the request, adjourned the matter to June 5.

It would be recalled that Akindele, in the suit marked: LD/ADR/5012/2023, had sued Odusanya vide a writ of summons dated May 23, 2023 for allegations bordering on defamation.

Akindele, who is the claimant, alleged that Odusanya, deliberately misinformed one Mr Cheriff Abdallah, a director in Duport Midstream Company Limited, via a phone conversation that he (Akindele) misappropriated the sum of $25 million belonging to the company.

It is also the case of the claimant that the defendant admitted to the making of such statement at a Board of Directors meeting of the company held on January 11, 2023.

The claimant further states that the statement purportedly made by the defendant against him amounts to both slander and libel and, on this premise, claims several reliefs against the defendant, which include damages and injunctive reliefs.

However, in his witness statement, Odusanya, who is a board member and a director of Duport Midstream Company Limited, urged the court to dismiss Akindele’s claims with substantial cost.

According to him, the claims are frivolous, vexatious, malicious, unfounded, otiose, of no moment and an attempt at gold digging and reaping where the claimant did not sow.

He admitted having several phone conversations with Mr Cheriff Abdallah, a fellow board member in the company.

He, however, averred that the conversation centred on his concern about the way and manner Akindele is operating and managing the affairs of the company as an appointed MD/CEO, which he said was in sharp contrast with the terms of the shareholders’ agreement.

“The conversations were premised on the claimant’s disregard of his obligations to the company’s board, which stipulated on the terms of his appointment that while he was responsible for the day-to-day management of the company, all his business decisions for the company were subject to the approval of the company’s board.

He said the board, sometime in 2022, demanded that Akindele should render a comprehensive account of his activities in the company after seeing that the business of the company and the reputation of the board members were being jeopardised,

Odusanya said his conversations were not malicious in nature but privileged communications in the circumstances.

“I made the statements complained of in the exercise of my legitimate right and interest as a board member, expressing my concern to a fellow board member regarding the activities of the claimant in the company,” he said.