Ibori: Court Requests Defence Team to Produce Evidence of Manipulation

• Ex-governor urges court to halt confiscation suit pending appeal

Judge David Tomlinson wednesday at the Southwark Crown Court in London queried the lead counsel to the former Governor of Delta State, James Ibori, to produce evidence that his client’s case was manipulated by the court.

Judge Tomlinson, who ‘exploded’ during the afternoon session at court 14, politely but vehemently told the lead counsel, Ivan Krolick, to produce a clear evidence that the court manipulated both Ibori’s conviction and confiscation hearing during the time the court was presided by Judge Anthony Pitts.

“I don’t understand what you are saying. You are describing a series of events that has happened. Was Judge Pitt misled? Where is the evidence because I can’t see what you are saying and I am in no way thinking that the prosecuting counsel misled the court,” his said.

That was not all, the judge said Pitt must have realised that there was misapprehension, insisting that he was still looking to see whether there would be any tenable reason that the court misinformed him (Pitt).

He however remarked that in the interest of proper case management, that he would form a view in the matter and will welcome more suggestions from both the prosecuting and defence teams.

The issue of manipulation reverberated yesterday when Krolick was making his submission before the court went on break in the afternoon.

Krolick had then made reference to the prosecuting team’s use of Section 72 AA on assumption when lead and ousted prosecutor, Sasha Wass (QC) was involved in the case.

Krolick who did not find today’s proceeding palatable wobbled to convince his honour that Ibori’s jail sentence did not follow due process. “If Ibori accepted some benefits according to the prosecuting team, no one explained as to why they want to rely on assumptions,” Krolick said.

But Judge Tomlinson simply asked Krolick if he accepts Judge Pitt’s words. To this Krolick aptly said no. “Judge Pitt listened to the proceeding argument and decided to adjourn the case and not that he was confused according your claims,” Tomlinson told Krolick.

“He was not misled by the crown court. It was on his own appraisal and not that he was misled. Ibori’s conviction still remains as it is and we should proceed on this application. I can’t consider evidence from previous counsel.
However, Ibori who is incarcerated for corrupt practices concerning Delta State funds also yesterday asked the Southwark Crown to adjourn his case on confiscation hearing pending when a review is concluded in August.

The adjournment it was gathered, is to enable him appeal his conviction before entertaining the confiscation hearing.
This line of action according to his lawyer could easily end up his case therefore quashing any action that could have been taken at the Crown court. However this decision is still dicey as his team could not predict what the judge will decide on.

However, Ibori’s plea was confirmed when the prosecuting team led by Jonathan Kinnear (QC) said Ibori, who initially was interested that the confiscation hearing should go on, said he had certainly changed his mind and called for adjournment.

He maintained that for the interest of justice which he hinged his argument on, noted that both the prosecuting and defence teams had agreed that the case be adjourned, an agreement Jonathan said was welcomed with a resounding yes.
Surprisingly, Judge Tomlinson said he has not seen any germane reason why the confiscation hearing should be adjourned.
Though Jonathan insisted that the case be adjourned until the completion of their review on disclosure and jurisdiction.

“For the interest of justice, review must be completed because of some issues, such as the defence team claimed abuse of process. Ibori has also agreed that the case should be adjourned. And they may be errors which your honour would like to consider,” he said.

Sticking to his guns, the judge submitted that if an officer who was part of an investigation was said to be corrupt, how could confiscation of assets be an abuse of the process?