Tag: Court

 

 

Flowerbudnews

TKJ (not real name), the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC)’s star witness, on Wednesday, admitted she did not include in her two statements to the commission the allegations that Prof. Cyril Ndifon forced her to give him “a blow job” in his car because she was ashamed about the incident.

TKJ, who is the ICPC’s 2nd prosecution witness (PW2), stated this while being cross-examined by Ndifon’s counsel, Joe Agi, SAN, before Justice James Omotosho of a Federal High Court, Abuja.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that during the ICPC’s investigation, TKJ, one of the alleged victims of allegation of sexual harassment against Ndifon, the suspended Dean of Faculty of Law, University of Calabar (UNICAL), wrote two extra-judicial statements dated Nov 9, 2023 and Nov. 10, 2023 at the Calabar office of the anti-corruption commission.

Blow job, according to a dictionary meaning, is an act of oral sex performed on a man.
NAN had, on Tuesday, reported that the witness, while giving her evidence-in-chief, alleged that the suspended dean came to the front of her hostel in a tinted glass car and asked her to joined him.

She alleged that while having a discussion with him, he tried to put his hand inside her trousers but she stopped him from doing that..

She further alleged that Ndifon later brought out his manhood and forcefully put it in her mouth.to suck.

NAN reports that Ndifon was, on Jan. 25, re-arraigned alongside Sunny Anyanwu as 1st and 2nd defendants on an amended four-count charge bordering on alleged sexual harassment and attempt to perverse the cause of justice.

Anyanwu, who is one of the lawyers in the defence, was joined in the amended charge filed on Jan. 22 by the ICPC on allegation that he called TKJ on her mobile telephone during the pendency of the charge against Ndifon to threatened her.

However, during cross-examination on Wednesday, Agi asked TKJ: “You told this court that the 1st defendant forced you to do a blow job?”

“Yes, in his car. He bent my neck and gave me N3000 after for treatment,” she responded.
“I put it to you that, that is not true,” the lawyer said, but TKJ insisted it was true.

Agi also put the question to TKJ that the allegation that Ndifon tried to make her do blow job with him in his office was also untrue but she said it was true.

The senior lawyer then asked her if she made statements to ICPC on those two occasions and she answered in affirmative.
“In those two different days, you never told ICPC in your statements that the 1st defendant did blow job with you; you just manufactured that later?” he asked.
Responding, TKJ said: “I did not tell them in my statements because I was ashamed about it.”
She had also told the court that when Ndifon forcefully bent her neck to give him a blow job, she cried and went and told her roommates in the hostel.
But when the lawyer asked her if she put the experience about informing her roommates in the statements, the witness admitted she did not.
She equally admitted that she did not put it in her statement that Ndifon gave her N3000 for treatment after the blow job experience.
TKJ said she only gave summary of what transpired between Ndifon and her, besides feeling ashamed of the whole scenario.
When Agi asked her how many people were with her when she was making the statements, the PW2 said about three people.
Reacting, the lawyer said it couldn’t have been shame that made her not to write details of her experience since there were more people in the courtroom than where she wrote the statements, “that you just don’t want to tell the true.”
But TKJ, who insisted it was shame, broke into tears behind the shield.
Agi further asked her if she wrote in her statements the allegation that Ndifon made her to do a nude video of herself putting her two fingers in her vargina inside toilet and sent to him.
“I did not tell the ICPC about the nude video I did inside the toilet where I put my two fingers in my vargina because I only did a summary of it in my statement,” she said.
The witness said she did all the chats and others with Ndifon because of the admission he promised her and because of her safety after the sexual harassment.
She disagreed with the lawyer that the anti-corruption commission guided her on what to write.
“The ICPC Did not guide me on what to write,” she said.
Taking TKJ on one of the exhibits which captured some of the WhatsApp chats with Ndifon, the lawyer asked that those communications which were between her and the embattled professor were supposed to be a secret between them, but the witness said she did not willingly do it
“Did he put a gun on your head?” he asked, but she said Ndifon did not put a gun on her head.
“Would you have been happy if 1st defendant had sent those messages and videos to people? Agi asked again.
“I will not be happy if he had shared it with people because I was not happy sending them,” she responded.
Earlier while being led in evidence by ICPC’s lawyer, Osuobeni Akponimisingha, TKJ said she received a strange call from Mr Sunny Anyanwu, one of Ndifon’s lawyers, after the suspended don was granted bail.
“A strange number called me and when I picked, the person called me by my native name.
“He told me his name was Barrister Sunny. And he said that Prof told him that I am from Enugu State.
“I told him I am not from Enugu State. He asked me where I am from and ai told him.
“I asked him why he called he said he called because of Professor Cyril, his friend.
“He said he is from Enugu State. He also said he blamed his friend for everything that had happened. He said they have been friends for long
“I told him that I have been traumatised a lot he said he knew” she said.
The witness told the court that Anyanwu told her on phone not to honour ICPC’s invitation or write anything if they asked her to.
“He said if I do what he asked me to do, he would give me a better admission outside University of Calabar,” she added
She said she had neither met nor seen Anyanwu before.
Meanwhile, Justice Omotosho had adjourned until Feb 9 to rule on the bail applications of Ndifon and Anyanwu.
The judge, who adjourned the matter after counsel for the defence and prosecution adopted their processes and presented their arguments for and against the bail plea, hinted that he was inclined to grant bail to the duo.
He said since bail was a constitutional right and the offences for which they were being charged were bailable ones, the defendants might likely be admitted to bail since the star witness who was alleged to have been threatened on phone had concluded her testimony.(NAN)(www.nannews.ng) / Flowerbudnews

Flowerbudnews

A Federal High Court, Abuja has adjourned the trial of Ali Bello and his co-defendant, Dauda Suleiman, until Tuesday for continuation of hearing in a charge filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
Justice James Omotosho adjourned the matter after Edward Bannada, the 2nd prosecution witness of EFCC, was cross-examined and re-examined by counsel for the defence and prosecution.

While A.M. Aliyu, SAN, appeared for Bello, the 1st defendant, Nureini Jimoh, SAN, represented Suleiman, the 2nd defendant in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/550/2022.

While being cross-examined by Jimoh with respect to the evidence he tendered (statements of accounts), Bannada, an official of the United Bank for Africa (UBA), said he could not remember seeing the names of the two defendants as beneficiaries who made withdrawals from the bank statements tendered.
He, however, confirmed that Abdulsalam Hudu made most of the withdrawals from the account statements.
The Witness also stated that he played no role in the entries contained in the statements of account and only became a witness in the matter due to EFCC’s invitation.
Bannada also confirmed that the cash transactions of the Kogi State Government and the Kogi State Government House Administration, as seen in the statements of account, were majorly inflow of security funds and the cash withdrawal of the inflow, which did not contravene the Cash Withdrawal Policy of the CBN, the bank or any law.

He also confirmed that the withdrawal by Hudu did not exceed the limit of the security fund lodgement.

When the anti-corruption agency’s lawyer, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, attempted to re-examine the witness on the issue of the absence of the name of Ali Bello and Dauda Suleiman on the statements of account and the operation of a computer, tte court overruled him.

The matter was consequently adjourned until Feb. 6 for trial continuation.

EFCC had, on Dec. 15, 2022, arraigned Bello, identified as a nephew of former Gov. Yahaya Bello of Kogi, and Suleiman on a 10-count charge of alleged misappropriation and money laundering.

The anti-graft body claimed the duo, alongside Hudu, a cashier at the Kogi State House who is at large, withdrew N10.2 billion from the state’s treasury for personal use.

 

Flowerbudnews

Mr Kenneth Ibe-Kalu, a businessman has instituted a N5 trillion suit against the Minister of Works and Housing alleging copyright infringement.

In the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1047/2022 before Justice Bolaji Olajuwon, Ibe-Kalu  sought 22 reliefs.

The case filed during President Muhammadu Buhari-led government, alleged that Mr Babatunde Fashola, who was the presiding minister and Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission (ICRC) were “liable for the tort of conversion” by dealing with Ibe-Kalu’s idea and concept as though the idea and concept belonged to them.

In the writ of summons dated July 13, 2022, and filed Dec. 13, Hugiano Embold Solutions Ltd and Ibe-Kalu, the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs, sued the Minister of Works, Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister if Justice and ICRC as 1st to 3rd defendants.

Also joined in the suit are Minister of Information and Culture, Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC), National Planning Commission (NPC), KPMG Advisory Services, KPMG Professional Services as 4th to 8th defendants.

Others are Incorporated Trustees of Pan Atlantic University Foundation (Lagos Business School) and United Kingdom Secretary of State for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (United Kingdom Nigeria Infrastructural Advisory Facility Programme) as 9th to 10th defendants respectively.

Ibe-Kalu, the Managing Director of the 1st plaintiff, in the amended statement of claims, averred that he was the one, who conceptualised the idea of National Transformation Tourists Centers (NTTC).
He said he was moved by patriotic zeal and personally undertook extensive research and study into infrastructure driven economic development of Nigeria to eddress the huge infrastructure deficit and promote development in the process.

According to him, the NTTC idea is a development initiative to boost even development across the country, to secure safety on the highways, to encourage tourism as well as to tackle the security challenges bedeviling the nation.
He said as conceived, 15 per cent of the accruable revenue from the management of the concept would go to the state governments while five per cent accruable revenue would go to the Federal Government.
He said In a letter dated March 15, 2016, he wrote to former President Buhari and the concept was approved on a Private Public Partnership (PPP) arrangement.
He said after an input by the then Information minister, the NTTC concept was assigned to Works minister to partner with him to actualise the project on April 7, 2017.
He alleged that Fashola and ICRC infringed on his right by adapting his idea as theirs and renamed it as Highway Development and Management Initiative (HDMI) against Buhari’s directive.

According to him, Fashola and ICRC contacted KPMG Advisory Services and KPMG Professional Services (7th and 8th defendants), an accounting firm, to estimate the cost of execution of NTTC concept renamed as HDMI.
Ibe-Kalu averred that 12 routes were approved by ICRC estimated to cost N1.34 trillion.

“The plaintiffs aver that the probable cost of execution of the 340 NTTC is estimated to be around the figure of N50 trillion only,” he added.

He said after bidding by contractors, the minister of works is now partnering with 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th defendants to actualise the HDMI.

He said he wrote letters to all the defendants to notify them of alleged right breach.

Ibe-Kalu, therefore, sought an order directing the defendants jointly and severally to continue with the plaintiffs with respect to the commencement, the execution and the completion of project on PPP arrangement.
He sought an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his copyright.

He also sought an order of conversion deeming the him as the author and owner of the alleged minister of works’ HDMI which was an adaptation of his NTTC.

He equally sought an order directing the works minister and ICRC jointly and severally to render to him account of all monies received by them on the basis of HDMI, alleged to be an adaptation of NTTC idea.

Ibe-Kalu further prayed for an order directing the works minister and ICRC to pay him the sum of N5 trillion as exemplary damages for breach of copyright, contract and conversion of his concept, among other relief

While being led in evidence-in-chief by his lawyer, John Oseji, before Justice Olajuwon, Ibe-Kalu identified all the documents tendered in evidence and were admitted as exhibits.
The judge adjourned the matter until May 2 for cross examination of Ibe-Kalu, the prosecution witness

 

Flowerbudnews

The application filed by Edison Ehie, the Chief of Staff (CoS) to Gov. Siminalayi Fubara of Rivers, seeking an order to strike out the charge against him and others for want of jurisdiction has been struck out.

The plea was truck out by Justice Bolaji Olajuwon of the Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday. Justice Olajuwon held that Ehie, having not been joined as a defendant in the charge lacked the legal right to make such plea.

Justice Olajuwon also struck out the CoS’ prayer for an order striking out his name anywhere it might appear in the charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/25/2024.

The judge agreed with the police lawyer, Simon Lough, SAN, that having not been joined as a defendant in the charge, Ehie’s application cannot be heard.

Ehie, who was recently appointed as CoS after he resigned as member and factional speaker of the assembly, was alleged to be among the suspects charged by the I-G for committing the offence.

Five suspected arsonists of the Rivers House of Assembly were, on Jan. 25, arraigned before Justice Olajuwon on seven-count charge bordering on alleged terrorism, among others.

Ehie, whose name was mentioned, was alleged to be at large with other suspects.

The five defendants arraigned are Chime Eguma Ezebalike, Prince Lukman Oladele, Kenneth Goodluck Kpasa, Osiga Donald and Ochueja Thankgod.

They, however, pleaded not guilty to the seven-count charge and were ordered to remain in Kuje Correctional Centre until today when their respective bail applications would be determined by the judge.

Upon resumed hearing today, Ehie’s lawyer, Oluwole Aladedoye, SAN, informed the court that he had filed an application dated and filed on Jan. 29, seeking for two orders.

He said the parties had been served accordingly.

Aladedoye said the application was brought pursuant to Sections 6 and 36 of 1999 Constitution.

He argued that it was incorrect that Ehie, whose name featured in the counts preferred by the Inspector-General (I-G) of Police had no right to make this application.

“It would have been different if the name is not there at all,” he added.

The senior lawyer equally argued that in their affidavit it was clearly stated that at no times was his client ever invited by the police.

He urged the court to grant their prayers.

But police counsel, Lough, disagreed with him.

Lough said though he was served with Ehie’s application, the motion was not ripe for hearing.

According to him, the application is incompetent in view of Section 396(2) of Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.

He said since Ehie was challenging the jurisdiction of the court, the provision of the law says until an applicant is joined and takes his plea before he can have the right to file such motion.

“His (Ehie’s) name is not in the charge and has not applied to be joined. So his application is incompetent,” he said, praying the court to strike it out.

Justice Olajuwon, who agreed with Lough, asked: “Who is this person? The person is not a party in this charge and the order challenging the jurudiction of the court is refused.”

The judge said Ehie’s name was only mentioned as a person who is at large, which was just a statement.

She held that the CoS was yet to be joined as a defendant in the charge.

The judge said that if Ehie was not at large, he should make himself available to the police.

“If that person is not at large, let him make himself available to the police,” she said.

Olajuwon subsequently struck out Ehie’s prayer seeking to strike out his name anywhere it was mentioned in the charge
Meanwhile, the judge had stood down the matter to rule on the bail applications of the five defendants. Flowerbudnews

 

 

By Biola Lawal
Lagos (Flowerbudnews): An actress, Oluwadarasimi Omoseyin, has been convicted and  sentenced to six months imprisonment for  spraying and stepping on the new Naira notes at a social event in Lagos,

She was sentenced by Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke of the Federal High Court sitting in Ikoyi, Lagos, on Thursday, February 1, 2024, a statement by Dele Oyewale Head,  Media & Publicity, EFCC disclosed.

She was first arraigned on February 13, 2023 by the Lagos Zonal Command of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, on two-count charges, to which she pleaded “not guilty.

She was subsequently granted bail on February 15, 2023, the statement said.

One of the count reads: “That you, Oluwadarasimi Omoseyin, on the 28th day of January, 2023, at Monarch Event Centre, Lekki, Lagos , within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, whilst dancing during a social occasion tampered with the sum of N100, 000.00 (One Hundred Thousand Naira) issued by the Central Bank of Nigeria by spraying same in the said occasion and you thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 21(1) of the Central Bank Act, 2007.”

At the resumed hearing on Thursday, Omoseyin, however, changed her “not guilty” plea to “guilty”, in view of the overwhelming evidence against her.

Following her “guilty plea”,  the  prosecution counsel, Z.B. Atiku called Abubakar Mohammed Marafa, an operative of the EFCC, to review the facts of the matter.

Marafa recalled that, “the defendant was arrested by officers of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission, ICPC, on February  1, 2023, and was handed over to the Commission on February 2, 2023 for further investigation. “
According to him, the defendant’s statement was taken under caution, where she stated that  she attended a friend’s wedding on January 28, 2023, and that she sprayed N200 and N100 Naira notes on the occasion.

“ The defendant was processed and the videos of where she sprayed the money was found on her phone. Also, further investigations were carried out and the management of the event centre was invited. They also brought in the video footage of the said event.”

The prosecution counsel, thereafter, further applied to tender, in evidence, the letter from the ICPC and other accompanying documents , including the extra-judicial statement of the defendant, forensic report of her phone, a CD of videos showing her spraying the naira note, a  flash drive from the event centre together with the statement of the representative of the centre.

Justice Aneke admitted them as exhibits and convicted the defendant, as charged.  The defence counsel, Afuye Adegbola pleaded for leniency, saying, “ she’s a first-time offender; she is a mother of one; she is remorseful and pleads for mercy.”

He further pleaded for a non-custodial sentence on behalf of the convict.

Delivering judgment, Justice Aneke  sentenced the defendant to six months imprisonment, effective from Thursday, with an option of N300,000 ( Three Hundred Thousand Naira only) fine to be paid into the consolidated revenue account of the federation.

Omoseyin bagged her imprisonment when she was arrested by operatives of the ICPC along Awolowo Road , Ikoyi, Lagos,  after the video of her spraying and stepping on the newly redesigned Naira notes at a party surfaced online.  In the viral video, she was also seen flaunting wads of the new Naira notes.  In her statement to the Commission, she claimed that she received the new Naira notes from her fans at the party and that she did not know the persons who gave her the money.

Items recovered from her at the point of arrest include a Range Rover. (Flowerbudnews)

 

 

The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, has reserved judgment on an appeal seeking to address the prevalence of extra-judicial killings in the country.

The appellate court reserved the judgment after parties argued their case for and against the appeal and adopted their briefs of argument on January 16, 2024.

Recalls that Emmanuel Ekpenyong, a Nigerian citizen and legal practitioner of the law firm of Fred-Young & Evans LP, appealed against a judgment delivered on May 6, 2022, by Justice Nkeonye Maha of a Federal High Court, Abuja Division.

Justice Maha dismissed the suit filed by Ekpenyong against the President, Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice of the Federation as 1st and 2nd defendants, but respondents in the appeal number: CA/ABJ/1200/2022.

Ekpenyong alleged that the wanton loss of human lives in Nigeria in recent times has put him as a “person” described under Section 33 (1) of the Nigerian Constitution in reasonable apprehension that his right to life under Section 33 (1), Chapter IV of the Nigerian Constitution is likely to be contravened.

In the originating summons marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/755/2020 dated and filed July 10, 2020, the plaintiff submitted six questions for determination.

Ekpenyong urged the court to determine whether his right to life enshrined in Section 33 (1) of Nigerian Constitution “means the protection of the plaintiff’s life beyond mere physical and animal existence and extends to the right to live a meaningful, complete and dignified life?

“Whether the plaintiff’s right to life enshrined in Section 33 (1) of the 1999 Constitution prohibits any unlawful acts of omission or commission by the Nigerian state, Nigerian police, other law enforcement agents and private individuals which are capable of terminating the plaintiff’s life?

“Whether the plaintiff’s right to life enshrined in Section 33 (1) of the 1999 Constitution extends to the right against torture and inhuman treatment, right to personal liberty, right to fair hearing, right to private and family life, right to acquire and own immovable property anywhere in Nigeria, right to adequate compensation upon compulsory acquisition of property as enshrined in Sections 34 to 44 of the 1999 Constitution, among others.”

He then sought an order of mandatory Injunction compelling the defendants to take immediate steps to overhaul and reform the Nigerian police and other law enforcement agencies to incorporate forensic science in their criminal investigations to address extra-judicial killings by both state and non-state actors.

He said this would also help to ensure that every unlawful death committed are thoroughly investigated and the culprit arraigned before a court of competent jurisdiction, among other reliefs.

In the judgement, Justice Nkeonye Maha held that Ekpenyong failed to present sufficient facts in proof of the case.

The judge, who dismissed the suit for lack of reasonable cause of action against the defendants, awarded a cost of N100,000.00 against the plaintiff.

But in a notice of appeal dated June 29, 2022, the lawyer, an appellant, prayed the Appeal Court to allow the appeal and set aside the whole judgement.

The appellant, who urged the upper court to also set aside the N100, 000 cost, sought an order granting all the reliefs sought in his originating summons filed on July 10, 2020.

Also in his brief dated Dec. 22, 2022, and filed Dec. 23, 2022, Ekpenyong prayed the court to hold that the decision of the trial court amounted to a miscarriage of justice when it held that some paragraphs in his affidavit were incompetent and refusing to determine the germane questions of law.

He contended that he is a “person” as envisaged under Section 33 (1) of the Nigerian Constitution and he has locus standi to institute the suit.

He further contended that a Nigerian citizen has a right to apply to courts for interpretation of provisions of the Nigerian Constitution.

He argued that he must not wait for his right to life to be threatened or deprived before he has a right of action because the right is meant to protect his life while he is still alive.

Ekpenyong further argued that under Section 46 (2) of the Nigerian Constitution, mere apprehension that his right to life is likely to be contravened constitutes a reasonable cause of action.

“The prevalence of extra-judicial killings in Nigeria in recent times is a notorious fact which need no further proof,” he added.

Ekpenyong wants the appellate court to hold that he has disclosed a reasonable cause of action against the respondents because the wanton loss of lives in the country in recent times has put him in reasonable apprehension that his right to life is likely to be contravened.

But the respondents prayed the Appeal Court to dismiss the appeal.

In a brief of argument filed by O.A. Oloruntogbe, the 1st and 2nd respondents argued that the principle of justiciability is underpinned by the consideration that judicial procedures are unsuitable and ill-equipped to deal with hypothetical or empty jurisprudential issues such as the appellant’s case.

According to them, there must always be a live issue tied to the subject matter forming the basis upon which a litigant approaches a court for reliefs.

“For courts exist not for fanciful or merely academic claims but to grant reliefs or remedies to an injured party or a party who is likely to suffer an injury,” they said.

They submitted that Ekpenyong’s claims that the wanton killings reported in the news put him in the fear of his life was completely misplaced as perceived.

They said “the reliance on a slew of academic papers and online news reports of the spate of crime and alleged police brutality in Nigeria cannot by any stretch of imagination be a breach of the appellant’s fundamental rights, which have not been shown in this case, to have been personally breached.

“Therefore my Lords, we submit humbly that the learned trial court held correctly that the appellant failed to establish any cause of action in his case.”

The defendants equally submitted that the trial court was right when it awarded a N100, 000 cost against Ekpenyong and in favour of the respondents in the suit for being frivolous and vexatious.(Flowerbudnews)

 

 

Abuja: There was a mild drama at a Federal High Court, Abuja, on Friday, after Justice James Omotosho adjourned the hearing of a bail application of Prof. Cyril Ndifon, the suspended Dean of Faculty of Law, University of Calabar (UNICAL), until Jan. 31.

The adjournment followed counsel for the prosecution, Osuobeni Akponimisingha’s objection that he was just being served with Ndifon’s further affidavit and would need time to study the process in the interest of fair hearing.

The development did not go down well with Solomon Umoh, SAN, who appeared for Ndifon and Sunny Anyanwu, the co-defendant.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) is prosecuting Ndifon and Anyanwu (1st and 2nd defendants) on allegations bordering on sexual harassment and threatening the star witness in the case.

Anyanwu, who is one of the lawyers in the defence, was joined in the amended charge filed on Jan. 22 by the ICPC on allegation that he called one of the prosecution witnesses on her mobile telephone during the pendency of the charge against Ndifon to threatened her.
Justice Omotosho had, on Thursday, ordered the two defendants to be remanded in Kuje Correctional Centre pending the hearing of their bail applications.
The judge, who adjourned the matter until today (Friday), held that the bail request would be taken after the trial.
When the matter was called on Friday for continuation of trial, Umoh prayed the court to allow the hearing of his clients’ bail applications before the trial but Akponimisingha opposed it, saying based on the previous day’s directive of the court, the trial should be taken first.

The ICPC lawyer argued further that he was just being served with the latest application filed on Thursday by Umoh and that he would need time to study it whether to respond or not.
But Umoh told the court that Akponimisingha was being economical with the truth because he was aware of the medical report attached to the application already, and that the instant application was just an adjunct.

He said when the judge admitted Ndifon to temporary bail on Jan. 10 to enable him go for a glaucoma surgery slated for Jan. 11, it took them about a week to perfect the bail before the professor could proceed.
He said the latest documents attached to the bail application had been verified by the ICPC in Exhibit PF

“So why will the counsel seek for an adjournment?” he asked.
Besides, Umoh argued that Akponimisingha had no right to file any other process after the one he filed “because this is the final process.”
He insisted that bail is a constitutional right which should not be taken away from his clients, even though they had been subjected to media trial.
“We are talking of a constitutional right of a professor of Law to liberty,” he said.
The senior lawyer urged the court to overrule Akponimisingha and proceed to hear the bail plea.
Umoh said in the event that his application was not granted, “we ask that the interim bail be extended because he (Ndifon) has an imminent irreversible eye defect.”
But the anti-graft commission’s lawyer disagreed with Umoh.

He argued that the exhibit (Exhibit PF3) that the learner silk cited that they verified was in response to the medical report dated Dec. 29, 2023, and not the one dated Jan. 19.
He said contrary to Umoh’s claim, the commission had not verified the latest exhibit (Exhibit A).

“We have not verified the instant exhibit dated 19th day of January, 2024. He just serves me about three minutes ago.
“I am just seeing this document for the first time. Fair hearing demands that I be allowed to see it whether to respond to it or not.
“That is my reserved right which cannot be taken away from me. That is why I sought an adjournment to enable me look into it,” he said.
Ruling, Justice Omotosho said in view of the fact that the further affidavit filed on Jan. 25 by Umoh was served on Akponimisingha in the courtroom, “it is fair hearing that the lawyer be given time to respond.”
He said since accelerated hearing had been granted in the matter, the court would give a short adjournment.
The judge consequently adjourned the matter until Jan. 31 for hearing of the bail applications.
But shortly after the adjournment, Umoh stood up to address the court.
The senior lawyer, who insisted that bail is a constitutional matter, said the application he brought was in line with the constitution.
He reminded that Ndifon did not flout the interim bail granted by the court, hence the need to admit him to bail or extend the earlier one granted him.
“I beg in the name of God that he should be granted the bail in the terms granted him earlier,” he said.
Responding, Justice Omotosho said the earlier bail granted was granted on the premise that there were facts before the court that Ndifon was going for a medical surgery on a scheduled date.
He said even though they were unable to conclude on the bail application, the defendant was allowed to go on bail but did not undergo the surgery in the long run.
He said the facts about the present application were not before the court.
“You filed a process on Jan. 25 and you served the prosecution counsel today.
“That process has a medical report that was not before the court and the prosecution said he needs to respond
“I have looked at my diary and there are many cases on Monday and Tuesday.
“Even on Wednesday, Jan. 31, I have about 19 cases but I conceded to ensure that the bail application is taken,” the judge explained politely.
Umoh then prayed the court to take Anyanwu’s bail, saying “the bail of the 2nd defendant is independent of the 1st defendant. I will always thank you.”
Umoh consistently addressed the court using the word, “You,” and the judge corrected him, saying “learner silk, you are 13 years as senior advocate. You don’t address the court using ‘you’.”
“Don’t judge me with this because I am on my weakest point today,” Umoh responded.(NAN)(www.nannews.ng)