Skip to main content

Musings on the unfinished business

October 12, 2009

Image removed.Last week, I ended my piece on the Ibori-Ribadu saga by inviting more talk. Sure enough, there was an outpouring of responses from readers, including Ibori’s personal assistant on media, Tony Eluemunor, whose rejoinder had formed the basis for my October 6 article on this page. I know there is a risk of offending some readers who may be getting a bit fatigued by this Ibori business. I think, however, that it is important to stay with the matter and hope that through a robust public debate, we can cut through the lies and deception, layer by layer, until we get to the heart of the matter. It is in the spirit of the debate that I summarise the main points of Eluemunor’s latest rejoinder to my rejoinder.


One, he insisted that I should not have ignored the contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses regarding the claim by Nuhu Ribadu that Ibori offered him $15m bribe to be let off the hook.

Eluemunor said conflicting testimonies about when the money was kept in Andy Uba’s house, the number of bags in which it was collected, whether Ibori and Ribadu were present when it was collected; and those who loaded it into the car, were questions that could not be ignored.

It is not for me to deal with matters of alleged contradictions in witnesses’ testimonies. I hope that the court, this High Court in Asaba, will be able to do its job. I say so because as the Lagos lawyer, Femi Falana, pointed out last week, even the witnesses referred to by Eluemunor have since been hung out to dry. Ibrahim Magu, who interrogated Ibori and others, was detained for four weeks and has been suspended from the police for almost a year; Ibrahim Lamorde and Yahaya Bello have been posted out of EFCC; and Rotimi Jacobs, who has been handling a good number of the cases diligently, has been shoved. It’s a long road to justice, manifest justice.

Suffice to say that it is not the first time that Ribadu will corner those who tried to bribe him. He did so in the case of Julius Makanjuola when he was the police prosecutor. Ribadu also did so in the case involving Amaka Anajemba, Emmanuel Nwude and the Brazilian bank, making the bribery attempt a part of the charge. But we must avoid any distractions. The main point by Eluemunor here is that “there is no proof of such evidence (of a $15m alleged bribe), not even a receipt from the Central Bank.” That is not true. On April 26, 2007, one M.M. El-Yakub, on behalf of the Central Bank, acknowledged the receipt of $15m from the EFCC, which was then “stored in Strong Room 1.” We leave the court to decide the purpose and intendment of the deposit.

Two, Eluemunor said in his rejoinder to my rejoinder, that Judge Rivlin’s ruling in December 2008 rejecting the evidence brought before the court by the EFCC on grounds that it did not go through the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice was a vindication of the prerogative of the AGF Michael Aondoakaa on matters of mutual legal assistance between Nigeria and Britain. Of course, the AGF can act for the country under the mutual legal assistance treaty. But the treaty is subject to the domestic laws of the countries involved and Section 6 of the EFCC Act, which is a later enactment and a domestic law, expressly recognises the authority of the EFCC to act in matters of economic and financial crimes involving cooperating countries. Aondoakaa could have offered this advice to the London court, if he wanted. But not only did he conveniently withhold it, he actively worked with the other side against an agency under his watch. Aondoakaa, being Aondoakaa, will call a cow – any cow – master just to have the beef.

Outside the Ibori camp, I do not know of any other circles – including the bar association, his first constituency – where Aondoakaa is thought to be doing a professional job.

But I digress. As part of the second point of his latest rejoinder, Eluemunor said the letter to the Southwark court was not written by Judge Marcel Awokulehin, but by the registrar at the request of a certain Emeka Arinze, a lawyer. A clever but futile attempt to show the difference between six and half a dozen. On what basis did Arinze write; exactly what did he request for, on what grounds? Under what rule of court can a registrar write a lawyer on a case before a judge and even state categorically when the matter before the judge will be concluded, without the approval of the judge?

Three, Eluemunor modified his position on cases completed under Ribadu. He had said in his rejoinder of October 6 that “Ribadu never drove a case to conclusion; but got judgement in only two corruption cases in six years, through plea bargains.” Now, he says, “I maintain that Ribadu concluded only two corruption cases involving PUBLIC OFFICIALS (emphasis, his),” adding, for good measure, that Maurice Ibekwe died in “Ribadu’s gulag.” He is wrong on both counts, and his attempt to confuse the issues has failed him miserably. Mohammed Shettima Bulama, who was convicted by the court and given an option of a fine, which he paid, was managing director of the Bank of the North, a largely publicly-owned institution. Ibekwe died – regrettably – not in EFCC’s custody, but in Kirikiri prison where he had been remanded by Justice Kekere-Ekun. I must also add that if the Independent and Corrupt Practices Commission had been up and doing, corruption cases involving public officers would have been its main turf.

Four, and very important, Eluemunor broke his silence on Ibori’s double convictions in London in 1991 and 1992. He said a court had dismissed the documents tendered by the EFCC and that the judge condemned them as “reckless and provocative.” Eluemunor did not say where he found this statement, which he so mercilessly stuffed in the mouth of the judge. The 21-page ruling delivered by Justice Shuaibu of the Kaduna High Court on February 11, 2008 said nothing of the sort attributed to him by Eluemunor. Just in case distortion – that unfailing nemesis of every spin doctor – is catching up with my good friend, a summary of the court records might be a useful remedy.

While the defence wanted the statements that Ibori had been convicted expunged from the court records on the grounds that it contravened the Evidence Act, the judge ruled that he had found no evidence of any contravention. The judge did not, however, go into the merits of the case since it was an interlocutory application. But on the specific issue of certification (the defence had argued that the records of conviction were not properly certified), the judge said on page 20 of his ruling that, “the certification by the EFCC is in conformity with Section 111 of the Evidence Act.” Where Eluemunor found the expression “reckless and provocative,” I do not know.

Yet, it seems to me that it must have taken a lot of courage for Eluemunor to confront the “c” word. Finally, the camp of the Nieman Fellow is tackling the demons of convenient silence. In that same spirit, it would be nice to hear how the Delta State Government, on Ibori’s watch, used 820 million government shares in Oceanic Bank to guarantee a loan with Ascot Offshore Nigeria Limited, a private firm.

For more on the debate (and the text of Eluemunor’s rejoinder to my rejoinder), visit: www.punchng.com/ maincat.aspx?thecat=VIEWPOINT b ww I Ak V

googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });

googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });

googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });