Tag: Trial
-
Court cautions EFCC against breaching provisions of law in Adoke’s trial
The Federal High Court, Abuja, on Tuesday, cautioned the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) against an act contrary to the provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) in the trial of former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mohammed Adoke, SAN.Justice Inyang Ekwo gave the warning during the beginning of trial of Adoke and co-defendant, Aliyu Abubakar, in Abuja.The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Justice Ekwo had, on Aug. 4, adjourned till Tuesday for trial shortly after Adoke and Abubakar were re-arraigned by the EFCC on 14 amended counts of money laundering bordering on the controversial OPL 245 transactions, also known as Malabu Oil Deal.The judge had, at the last sitting, expressed sadness that the anti-graft agency went ahead to file an amended charge few days to the commencement of the trial.Again, the scheduled proceedings were stalled on Tuesday due to the failure of the EFCC to disclose the name of its proposed first witness in the list of witnesses and file the summary of the witness’s statement in the proof of evidence served ahead on the defendants.Shortly after the proceedings resumed, the EFCC’s Lawyer, Bala Sanga, called an official of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Clement Osagie, as the first prosecution witness.Immediately, the witness was put on oath, Abubakar’s lawyer, Olalekan Ojo, SAN, objected to Osagie giving evidence.“We are constrained at this juncture to raise an objection to this witness, Mr Clement Osagie giving any evidence because of the failure of the prosecution to comply with the mandatory provision of Section 397(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) with regard to the imperative necessity of the proof of evidence served on the defendant to include the list of witnesses, among other things,” he said.Ojo argued that the failure to include the name of the witness on the list and serve the defence with the summary of his statement was a breach of the right of the defence to fair hearing.“A fair trial is the trial that is conducted in accordance with the law. The whole essence of Section 379 (1) of ACJA is to ensure that the defence is not caught unaware.“We do hereby insist on the right of the 2nd defendant to be served with the names and summary of the statements of the witnesses,” he said.Responding, Sanga said the non-inclusion of the the documents requested by the defendants in the proof of evidence served by the prosecution was immaterial.He said this was so because the witness was a witness on subpoena and that was indicated in the proof of evidence served ahead on the defendants that an official of the CBN would testify as prosecution witness.Justice Ekwo dismissed the prosecution’s argument, saying the provision of Section 397(1) of ACJA cited by the defence clearly stipulated that the documents must be provided.The judge, who frowned against the manner the EFCC’s counsel was handling the trial, said he was lucky that the defence opened up at the early stage of the proceedings and did not wait till the end to “pull the carpet ““Unfortunately, in criminal proceedings, I am not allowed to penalise, I would have done so,” Ekwo added.The judge then gave the prosecution 24 hours to file and serve all the necessary documents demanded by the defendants and adjourned until Aug. 13 for continuation of trial. -
Court orders ex-petroleum minister, Diezani to surrender for trial
A Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered former Minister of Petroleum, Diezani Alison-Maudeke, to appear before it and answer to a money laundering charge filed against her by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
In a ruling on Friday, on an ex-parte motion, Justice Ijeoma Ojkukwu ordered the issuance of summons on Diezani for her to attend court for the purpose of her arraignment on the charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/208/2018.
To ensure that Diezani, said to have fled Nigeria for the United Kingdom (UK) was aware of the invitation, Justice Ojukwu ordered that the court’s summons should be published on the website of the EFCC and a national daily in a conspicuous manner.
Justice Ojukwu adjourned till October 28 this year for Diezani to attend court for the purpose of her arraignment on the pending money laundering charge.
EFCC’s lawyer, Faruk Abdallah had, while arguing the motion, noted that since Diezani allegedly fled the country, it was difficult to get her back to respond to the various criminal allegations against her.
Abdallah said there was the need for a court’s summons or arrest warrant to compel her appearance in court.
The EFCC, in a document filed along with the motion ex-parte, said it sought to question Diezani, without success, in relation to many allegations against her, including “her role as the Minister of Petroleum Resources and her role in the award of Strategic Alliance Agreement (SAA) to; Septa Energy Limited, Atlantic Energy Drilling Concept Limited and Atlantic Energy Brass Development Limited by NNPC.
The commission said it also wants Diezani to respond to questions about “her role in the chartering of private jets by the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) and Ministry of Petroleum Resources and her role in the award of contracts by NNPC to] Marine and Logistics Services Limited.
The EFCC said it is investigating Diezani’s business relationships with Mr. Donald Amamgbo, Mr. lgho Sanomi, Mr. Afam Nwokedi, Chief lkpea Leemon, Miss Olatimbo Bukola Ayinde, Mr. Benedict Peters, Christopher Aire, Harcourt Adukeh, Julian Osula, Dauda Lawal, Mr. Leno Laithan, Sahara Energy Group and Midwestern Oil Limited.
It added that Dezani was also required to clear air on “her role in financing the 2015 general elections, particularly the money that were warehoused at a Bank in 2015 prior to the elections.”
The EFCC said it equally wanted the ex-minister to speak on several items, documents and jewelleries recovered from her house at No: 10 Chiluba Close off Jose Marti Street, Asokoro, Abuja, and some identified properties that are linked to her’ In Nigeria, UK, United States of America (USA), United Arab Emirate (UAE) and South Africa.
-
#RevolutionNow Protest: Sowore’s trial resumes today
Hearing will continue today at the Federal High Court in Abuja in the trial against #RevolutionNow Convener Omoyele Sowore.
On December 6, 2019, Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu adjourned till February 11, 12 and 13, 2020, for definite hearing in the trial.
But the court did not sit yesterday as Justice Ojukwu was sitting outside division.Sowore and co-defendant, Olawale Bakare, are facing trial over charges of treasonable felony for organising the #RevolutionNow protest on August 5, 2019, which the government saw as an attempt to disrupt peace in the country.
He was arrested on August 3, 2019, by the Department of State Services (DSS) and was in custody until December 5, 2019, despite court orders to release him on bail.
Last November, the DSS acknowledged receipt of the court order but said the reason for still keeping Sowore was that the appropriate sureties had not come forward to bail him.
But following an order of Justice Ojukwu on December 5, 2019, that Sowore and Bakare be released within 24 hours and a cost of N100,000 awarded against the DSS, the duo were released around 5 p.m on the same day.
After his appearance in court the following day, the accused was rearrested by the DSS on fresh charges.Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami, on December 13, 2019, took over the prosecution of Sowore’s case from the DSS.
-
U.S. Senate rejects new witnesses, documents, acquits Trump Wednesday
By Dayo Benson Editor Politics,Law/Human Rights, New York
United States Senate Friday evening, voted against subpoena of witnesses and documents in the on-going trial of President Donald Trump, paving way for his predicted acquittal. President Trump may be acquitted on Wednesday February 5, 2020, when the Senate would vote on the two articles of impeachment. This is the first time the Senate is conducting a trial without calling witnesses.
The historic vote was sequel to a motion to that effect read by Presiding United States Chief Justice John Robert.
Expectedly, Republican Senators struck down the motion by simple majority votes of 49-51, along party line. Two Republican Senators Mitt Romney and Susan Collins broke ranks.
With the motion defeated, Republicans sealed the House Managers and Democratic Senators’ hope to turn the trial’s tide in their favour.
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, in his reaction, described the trial without witnesses and documents as “a perfidy and a tragedy.” Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in a statement said there was no need for the Senate to reopen the record with the “overwhelming” evidence the House Managers claimed they presented before the Jurors.
The day eight session began with four hours of arguments from both sides on whether or not to subpoena documents and witnesses. Democrats doubled down on their position that the Senate trial would be unfair without hearing from witnesses. They insisted the witness they demanded had first hand information. “A trial requires witnesses, a trial requires documents”, said one of the House Managers in her submission. They accused President Donald Trump and his defence legal team of hiding the truth. Americans, they contended, desired to know the truth. Democrats wanted four key witnesses, including former National Security Adviser John Bolton, to be called. Bolton had reportedly described the Ukraine saga as a “drug deal.” He also referred to Trump’s personal lawyer Ruddy Giuliani’s shadow foreign policy in Ukraine as a “hand grenade” capable of blowing everyone up. The White House had invoked Executive Privilege to prevent Bolton from testifying. Democrats however maintained that the President should not be allowed to use Executive Privilege to silence a witness whose evidence might contradict him.
In their defence, Trump’s lawyers argued that the two articles of impeachment were defective hence there was no need for new witnesses. They faulted the House Managers’ argument of unfair trial without witnesses. They accused the Managers of being unfair in the conduct of the impeachment proceedings. Despite repeated rebuttals by the Managers, the defence team insisted the President was shut out of one the proceedings. The defence lawyers pointed out that they did not have opportunities to cross examine major witnesses Democrats called during the impeachment proceedings. They described the quest for more witnesses as a smokescreen. The House Managers, they claimed, had primed the proceedings which lasted 78 days, to end before Christmas. They urged the Jurors not to help the Managers do what they failed to do.After the bout of fierce argument on the issue, the Senate went into a brief closed door deliberation on the way forward through negotiation and compromise. Republicans were divided on how to proceed. A faction wanted the entire process to end Friday night without calling new witnesses. The other faction consisted of Senators who wanted to speak publicly on the Senate floor. Senator McConnell tried to work out a middle ground position. Democrats tried to leverage on the situation. McConnell called for the vote in favour or against calling of witnesses and subpoena documents. Again, the motion failed by 51-49. At the instance of the Majority Leader, the Senate went on recess.
When the Senate reconvened at 7p.m, Senator McConnell read the resolutions that would guide proceedings on Monday, February 3 and Wednesday, February 5, 2020. Subsequent amendments which Senator Schumer proposed to call star witnesses failed after votes were taken on them. The drama continues on Monday when the Senate trial resumes.
-
TheNewsGuru US Correspondent asks: Will U.S. Senate acquit Trump today?
By Dayo Benson New York
Barring any unforeseen circumstances, the on-going Senate trial of President Donald Trump, may end in acquittal today, if the Democrats fail to secure 51 majority votes required to subpoena documents and witnesses. The Senate is set to cast the crucial vote today, after 16 hours of questions and answers from Jurors to House Managers and Trump’s defence Counsels
Earlier attempt by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to get the Senate amend its resolutions on the issue among others failed. House Managers have been pushing for a subpoena of documents and witnesses. There has been pushbacks from President Trump’s lawyers. They accused the House Managers of rushing impeachment trial to achieve a pre-determined end. They also took a swipe at the Managers for asking the Jurors to do what they ought to have done, but failed to do during the impeachment trial.
Interestingly, a key witness, former National Security Adviser John Bolton, has faulted the defence’s argument. Contrary to the latter’s claim, Bolton in the manuscript of his book due for publication March 17, 2020, revealed that Trump told him the Withheld Ukraine’s military aid was tied to investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. Bolton’s shattering revelation earlier in the week has been aptly described as “Bolton Bombshell.” Ambassador Bolton had indicated his willingness to testify if subpoenaed. The defence legal team would have none of that. They fear Bolton’s testimony may open a Pandora box that the Republicans may regret. In a preemptive move, one of the White House lawyers wrote a letter to Bolton’s lawyer complaining that the manuscript’s content could compromise national security, adding that they conflicted with the oath of secrecy which Bolton swore to. Bolton’s lawyer faulted this claim.
Beyond this, Republicans calculation is to conclude the trial this weekend, ahead of February 4, State of the Union Address by President Trump. It is expected that the President would leverage on the acquittal and make political gains.
There was an air of uncertainty weather the Democrats would get the much desired four Republicans to join them. The political dynamics were still very fluid in the Chamber as the questions and answers session wound down Thursday night. There were indications that three Republicans might break ranks and join Democrats. This may create a tie of 50-50. If this happens, Chief Justice John Robert, may have to break the tie. This, certainly, is a role he loathes to play.
The last seven days have witnessed opening arguments by both sides, followed by questions and answers that ended last night.
Prof Alan Dershowitz, Professor Emeritus of Harvard Law School, stirred a Constitutional controversy when he argues that whatever the President does in public interest even if it is in his personal interest to get re-elected “does not rise to a level of an impeachable offence.” However, House Managers’ Leader Adam Schiff describes Professor Dershowitz’s argument as “decent into constitutional madness.”
He says the argument is a “normalisation of what is wrong.” Professor Dershowitz explains that if the President finds himself in such a situation, it is a mixed motif, and the President needs not be subjected to psychoanalysis to establish his actual intention. The President, he submits, is free to do anything to secure his re-election if he believes it is in public interest.
He points that out even if the revelation in Bolton’s argument is True, it does not rise to an impeachable offence. Will the Senate acquit President Trump of impeachment charges today or will the trial continue? The next few hours will determine.
-
Trump: Will U.S. Senate do impartial Justice?
By Dayo Benson New York
The much awaited epoch Senate trial of President Donald John Trump, begins tomorrow, January 21,2020, at 1p.m. Eastern time at the Capitol, Washington D.C. The 100 Senators are sitting as Jurors, with the United States Supreme Court Chief Justice
John Robert, presiding.The stage was set for the landmark trial when Chief Justice Robert took the oath of impartiality which the Senate’s presiding officer administered on him Thursday last week. The Chief Justice in turn administered an oath to do “impartial justice according to Constitution and Law” on the Senators in a brief solemn ceremony. The Senators, in a set of four, filed forward to sign the oath book. President Trump, United States 45th President, was impeached December 18,2019, by Democrats controlled House of Representatives on two articles. He is the third American President in history to be impeached.
Earlier that Thursday last week, a seven-man prosecution team led by House of Representatives Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, walked into the Senate Chamber, armed with the two articles of impeachment. Schiff read the charges against Trump contained in the articles. Under House Resolution 755, the President was charged with “high crime and misdemeanor.” Trump who was accused of “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress” was described as a threat to national security and unfit to hold the exalted office of United States President.
Trump has been notified of the charges against him. He has maintained his innocence, even as he derisively described the House impeachment as a “hoax and political witch hunt.”
The President has looked forward to the Senate trial with bloated enthusiasm. He is confident of being acquitted by the Republican controlled Upper Legislative Chamber.
This optimism initially waned after the solemn swearing-in of Chief Justice Robert and the Senators.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, had Wednesday last week, named the seven-man prosecution team as the impeachment managers at the Senate trial. Other members are House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, Hakeem Jeffries Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, Val Demings member, House Judiciary and Intelligence committees , Jason Crow, former Army Ranger who served three combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, Sylvia Garcia , a social worker and legal aid worker, Zoe , No. 2 Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. In choosing the managers, Pelosi said emphasis was placed on prosecutorial ability.
Tomorrow’s proceeding is expected to take opening statements from both sides. The major issue, however, is the crucial vote on whether or not to call more witnesses. Democrats have been pushing for more witnesses to be called at the Senate trial, even before the jurors took the oath to do “impartial justice.” However, there are pushbacks from Republicans. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, appeared to have backed down on the issue. This, probably was unexpected, after Democrats’ much sought after star witness, former National Security Adviser John Bolton, indicated his willingness to testify if subpoenaed by the Senate. Bolton had gone to court to seek a restraining order from testifying when the House invited him during the impeachment hearings. An associate of Trump’s personal lawyer Ruddy Giuliani, Lev Parnas, who is facing criminal charges in New York, has also expressed his desire to testify before the Senate. He has released some relevant documents on the Ukraine saga, including personal photographs and videos with Trump. The President denied knowing Parnas. Republicans however want Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, the Whistle Blower, and others to testify. It remains to be seen whether there will be witnesses reciprocity. Government Accountability Office, GAO, said Trump broke the law by withholding the military aid meant for Ukraine.
Democrats need four Republicans to add up to their 47 minority to have more witnesses called if the issue is put to vote. The optics suggest this, given the current dynamics in the Senate Chamber. Some Republican Senators like Susan Collins who is critical of Trump and Mitt Romney, who described himself as a “renegade Republican” may break ranks when it comes to voting. However, ultra conservative Republicans like McConnell, are poised to acquit the President at all cost. For the dyed-in-the-wool Trumpers, the House Impeachment is a political hogwash that should be given the treatment it deserves.
The White House, Friday last week assembled well known legal defence team. The team will be led by Alan Dershowitz, professor emeritus at Harvard Law School. He defended or advised high-profile cases like O.J. Simpson, Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein. He will only present constitutional arguments against impeachment. Kenneth Starr, ex-Baylor president, ex-Pepperdine law professor, ex-independent counsel, and ex-solicitor general. As independent counsel, Starr led the investigation into the Clintons and the Whitewater real estate deal, which led to President Bill Clinton’s impeachment. Pat Cipollone,
a product of University of Chicago Law School, he was an assistant to Bill Barr in his first tenure as attorney general in the early ’90s. He replaced Don McGahn as White House counsel in October of 2018. Jay Sekulow, personal attorney to Trump and chief counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice. Robert Ray, succeeded Starr as independent counsel during the investigations of Clinton and issued the final reports. Before then, he served as assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. Pam Bondi, member of the White House impeachment communications team, he was involved in a Trump Foundation controversy after the charity was compelled to pay a penalty for donating to a campaign group connected to Bondi. Jane Raskin, a veteran attorney, she has been in public and private practice. Raskin and her husband joined Trump’s legal team in April of 2018. They engaged Mueller’s team and stonewalled the special counsel’s effort to interview the president.
Patrick Philbin, deputy White House counsel, he worked briefly at the DOJ under President George W. Bush. Philbin was in private law firm for over a decade before joining the White House Counsel’s Office in December 2018. Mike Purpura, deputy White House counsel, he served as an associate towards the end of Bush administration and went into private practice in Hawaii thereafter.Both prosecution and defence teams Saturday beat the 5p.m. Eastern time to file their briefs of arguments. The defence lawyers in aSix-page response said the impeachment was a “brazen attempt to interfere with the 2016 presidential election” adding that the articles of impeachment did not disclose any crime. The prosecution in over 100-page document insisted the President committed serious crime and should be removed from office.
Even with the Chief Justice Robert presiding over the trial which is expected to last weeks, he lacks the power of a sitting Judge. He is only expected to cast a breaking vote where there is a tie of 50-50 votes. Those who know him said he never wishes to play such a role in this deeply partisan situation. The ground rules will be set by the Senators who can also overrule him. This is where the trial is merely wearing the garb of Judicial proceeding, when it is actually a political trial.
Expectedly, the pretended solemnity that characterised the oath of impartiality would be subsumed in the anticipated charged atmosphere when the fireworks begin. Democrats need 20 Republican Senators to get the two third required to remove the President. The Constitution requires 67 Senators to fulfil this requirement. Analysts believe that getting this figure is unlikely.
In the trial of President Trump, will the verdict be based on form or substance, fact or fiction, reason or emotion, law or politics, innocence or guilt, or as predicted, will it be a sheer partisan show between Democrats versus Republicans? Will the Senate trial of the President do impartial justice according to law and constitution? The answer resides in the womb of the weeks ahead.
-
US senate announces date for Trump impeachment trial
The impeachment trial of US President Donald Trump in the Senate is likely to begin next week Tuesday with key players sworn in later this week, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said.
McConnell said he expected the House of Representatives to deliver the articles of impeachment against Trump to the upper chamber today.
“We believe that if that happens — in all likelihood — we’ll go through preliminary steps here this week which could well include the chief justice coming over and swearing in members of the Senate and some other kinds of housekeeping measures,” McConnell told reporters.
“We hope to achieve that by consent which would set us up to begin the actual trial next Tuesday.”
Trump faces charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, and the 100 senators will be his judge.
On Thursday or Friday this week, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is expected to be sworn in to preside over the trial, which should last at least two weeks, and could run through mid-February.
Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic House speaker, called for a fair trial and demanded the Senate subpoena witnesses and documents from the White House that will be crucial in the trial.
“The American people deserve the truth, and the Constitution demands a trial… The president and the senators will be held accountable,” she added.
Trump will become only the third president in US history to go on trial, risking his removal from office.
But his conviction is highly unlikely, given Republicans’ 53-47 control of the Senate, and the high two-thirds vote threshold required to find him guilty.
-
Court adjourns Abbo’s sex toy shop assault trial
The absence of Sen. Elisha Abbo, who allegedly assaulted a nursing mother, stalled continuation of trial in a Zuba Chief Magistrates’ Court in Abuja on Thursday.
Abbo who represents Adamawa North Senatorial Zone was arraigned on July 8, 2019 for allegedly assaulting a nursing mother, Mrs Warmate Osimibibra
At the resumed hearing, the police counsel, James Idachaba, and the defendant, (Sen. Abbo) were not in Court, NAN reports.
However, one Philip Tumba from the legal department of the FCT Police command told the court that, the prosecution counsel was attending a meeting with the Inspector-General of Police.
Tumba also said there was a letter of adjournment from the police which was filed at the court registry yesterday (Wednesday) but not served on the defence.
Similarly, the defense counsel Mr Isaac Adeniyi apologised for the absence of the defendant adding that he had health challenges.
Adeniyi, who did not object to the prosecution’s request for adjournment, said the dates suggested by the prosecution were not convenient to him.
In his ruling, the Presiding Magistrate Abdullahi Illelah adjourned the matter until Feb. 6 for continuation of trial.
The police said that the Senator committed the offence on May 11 at Pleasure Chest Shop FA 45 Located at Bannex Plaza Aminu Kano Crescent Wuse II Abuja.
He was also alleged to have slapped the complainant several times on her face and forcefully dragging her shirt. -
Court fixes date for resumption of Mompha’s ‘N33bn laundering’ trial
A Federal High Court in Lagos on Wednesday fixed January 15, 2020 to resume the alleged N33bn money laundering trial of a suspected internet fraudster Ismaila Mustapha, alias Mompha.
The new date was fixed at the instance of the defendant’s counsel, Mr Ademola Adefolaju who stood in for Mr. Gboyega Oyewole (SAN).
Mompha was arraigned by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on November 25, 2019, following his arrest on October 19 at the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport, Abuja.He and his co-defendant, Ismalob Global Investments Ltd, pleaded not guilty to a 14 count-charge bordering on the offence and are out on bail.
In the charge, the EFCC alleged that Mompha procured Ismalob Global Investment, owned by him, to retain the aggregate sum of N18.05billion between 2015 and 2019.
He was also alleged to have aidedcompany to retain N14.9 billion between 2015 and 2017, while not complying with the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and Federal Ministry of Trades and Investment financial transactions requirement.
In another instance, the EFCC accused Mompha and his firm of unlawfully negotiating a Foreign Exchange transaction with total sum of N630, 125, 900 million, for some individuals.
The offences, according to the commission, contravened Sections 18(c) and 15(2)(d) of the Money Laundering Prohibition Act, 2011 and punishable under Section 15 (3) of the same Act.