•Admits investigation into forgery of Senate Standing Rules inconclusive
• Police write clerk of N’Assembly for additional information
Three months after it charged Senate
President Bukola Saraki, his deputy, Ike Ekweremadu, and two others with
forging the Senate Standing Rules, the Office of the Attorney General
of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice has declared the
investigation into the alleged offence inconclusive, THISDAY has learnt.
The AGF, Abubakar Malami, is now
desperately seeking fresh investigations that will enable him convict
the accused persons, even though he has not withdrawn the pending
charges against them.
To get the court to accept the
charges, the AGF had told the court that investigations into the alleged
forgery had been concluded.
In June, when the case was first filed
in court and before the arraignment of Saraki and other co-accused
persons, the federal government deposed to an affidavit, which was
attached to the case file at the time, attesting that investigations
into the matter had been concluded.
In the charge sheet dated June 10,
2016 and signed by D.E Kaswe Esq., Principal State Counsel on behalf of
the AGF, and which was backed by an Affidavit of Completion of
Investigation deposed to at the Federal High Court Registry, Abuja, on
the same date by Okara Neji Jonah, a litigation officer in the Federal
Ministry of Justice, Abuja, attested that the police had concluded its
investigations.
Okara swore that “the FCIID (Force
Criminal Investigation and Intelligence Department) has concluded
investigation of the case and has forwarded the file to the Honourable
Attorney General of the Federation for Prosecution”.
However, three days to the adjourned
date on the matter, THISDAY gathered from highly reliable sources and
sighted various documents from both the office of the AGF and that of
the Inspector General of Police (IG) that the prosecution was making
frantic efforts to reopen what it termed “inconclusive investigations”.
A letter from the office of the AGF to
the IG and signed by the Special Assistant to the President on
(Research and Special Projects)/Secretary, National Prosecution
Coordination Committee, Sylvester Omoregie Imhanobe, a copy of which was
sighted by THISDAY, clearly stated that the AGF was seeking fresh
investigations into the case.
The AGF noted that after reviewing the
case, he had since realised that the investigations were
“inconclusive”, and therefore was seeking to reopen it.
The letter reopening the
investigation, addressed to the current IG, Ibrahim Idris, was received
in his office on Saturday, August 20, 2016, but which was mistakenly
dated Friday, August 19, 2015, read in part: “Sir, I have the
instructions of the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation and
Minister of Justice (HAGF)/Chairman, National Prosecution Coordination
Committee (NPCC), to write this letter for your kind prompt action.
“The NPCC and the new legal team
engaged to take over the prosecution of the above case have reviewed the
case file and found that the police investigation of the case was
inconclusive. Therefore, it is necessary that you further investigate
the case with particular reference to the following: Did the Seventh
Senate at any time amend the Senate Standing Orders 2011? If yes, what
was the extent of amendment?
“Further investigations should show –
who authorised the amendment of Senate Standing Orders, 2011? Who
ordered for the printing of the Senate Standing Orders, 2015? Who
distributed the printed copies of the Senate Standing Orders, 2015 to
senators-elect?
“Obtain the complete Hansard of the
9th and 24th June 2015 to see what transpired on the floor of the
Senate. What date was the induction mentioned by Senator Abdullahi
Gumel, what did they do with the Senate Standing Order of 2011 at the
induction? Who conducted the induction?
“The statement of Dr. Ogozy Nma should
be brought to the attention of Senator Ita Enang and Senator Abu
Ibrahim to corroborate or deny it.
“Find out the date Senator Ike Ekweremadu presided over the house and obtain the Hansard for the date.
“Please it is important that I receive
your response to the above inquiries on or before September 7, 2016 for
further necessary action.”
Acting on the letter, the IG, in a
letter dated August 25, 2016, asked the clerk of the National Assembly
to furnish his office with additional information on the forgery case.
The IG’s letter was signed by the
Chairman, Special Investigation Panel (SIP), Assistant Inspector General
(AIG) of Police Ali Amodu (rtd), a copy of which was also sighted by
THISDAY.
The police requested the clerk to
furnish them with “the date Senator Ike Ekweremadu presided over the
House in 2015”, just as it demanded the “Hansard (votes and proceedings
of the plenary session) for the date” in question.
Curiously, in a reminder titled “First
Reminder” by the police dated August 31, 2016, the paragraph requesting
that “the statement of Dr. Ogozy Nma should be brought to the attention
of Senator Ita Enang and Senator Abu Ibrahim to corroborate or deny it”
was removed.
As at the time of filing this report,
it was not clear if the clerk of the National Assembly had furnished the
police with the required information.
What was clear, however, was that the prosecution was desperately searching for information to nail the accused persons.
This latest move confirmed the initial
perception that the federal government had filed the forgery charge to
humiliate Saraki and Ekweremadu and force them to step down as principal
officers of the National Assembly.
Meanwhile, Justice Yusuf Halilu of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court, Jabi, Abuja, will on Wednesdayrequest that the federal government reopens its case against the accused persons.
Both senators are facing trial over their alleged involvement in the forgery of the Senate Standing Rules, 2015.
Also charged before the court over the
alleged forgery were the former clerk of the National Assembly, Alhaji
Salisu Abubakar Maikasuwa, and his deputy, Mr. Benedict Efeturi.
The judge on June 27
admitted the defendants to bail and adjourned the matter for trial. All
the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges preferred against
them.
However, the case could not proceed as
scheduled on the next adjourned date of June 27, 2016, owing to the
fact that the court had commenced its annual vacation.
Consequently, the trial of the defendants was differed tillWednesday, September 28, 2016.
Ekweremadu had in a letter to the
international community complained of the trumped-up charges against him
and his boss, the Senate President, as well as the retired and then
serving senior bureaucrats of the National Assembly.
He said: “I also wish to appeal to you
to kindly find time to read through the annexures – petition by members
of the Senate Unity Forum, statements by persons interrogated, and the
police report – to see if our names appeared anywhere in these
documents.
“You may, thereafter, judge for
yourself whether the federal government, acting through the Attorney
General of the Federation, has any justification whatsoever to generate
our names for trial.
“The list of the accused persons
appears to have been politically generated, because you cannot by the
documents attached relate any of our names to the offence for which we
are now being charged.
“Moreover, the rules and principles of
fair hearing have not been adhered to because the police have not
interacted with me or the President of the Senate as at the time of
writing this letter.
“You may also wish to judge for
yourself whether this trial orchestrated against me is not a political
trial, calculated witch-hunt, barefaced intimidation, and a clear
attempt to emasculate the parliament and silence me as the leader and
highest ranking member of the opposition in Nigeria.”
Interestingly, a Federal High Court in
Abuja presided over by Justice Gabriel Kolawole had also ruled on June
28, 2016 that the trial of the duo, while the suit challenging the
constitutionality of the police investigation of the internal affairs of
the Senate upon which the case was based was still pending in his
court, was a “gross abuse of legal process”.
He, however, declined to
stop the trial, because according to him, that power resided in the
court of coordinate jurisdiction already hearing the case.
0 comments:
Post a Comment