March 2, 2010
British prosecutors today began to lay out the money laundering case against associates of former Governor James Ibori by telling a London court that Ibori committed ‘massive theft’ during his eight-year tenure as governor of Delta state. In the resumed money-laundering trial of Ibori’s associates, prosecutors told the Southwark Crown court, presided over by Mr Christopher Harding, that Ibori used third party agents and nominees to siphon state funds and acquire properties and assets within and outside Nigeria.
British prosecutors today began to lay out the money laundering case against associates of former Governor James Ibori by telling a London court that Ibori committed ‘massive theft’ during his eight-year tenure as governor of Delta state. In the resumed money-laundering trial of Ibori’s associates, prosecutors told the Southwark Crown court, presided over by Mr Christopher Harding, that Ibori used third party agents and nominees to siphon state funds and acquire properties and assets within and outside Nigeria.
The case is being presented before a jury of 12 randomly selected members of the British public. The jurors were called in about 3:25p.m. (London time), following which the prosecution team called in Mr. Chima Umezurike as their first witness in the case. The witness, a lawyer who is a member of both the Nigerian and English bars, testified on the Nigerian constitutional requirements and code of conduct for public office holders in Nigeria, including governors.
Mr. Umezurike was asked to explain the grounds on which a governor may be disqualified from public office. He spoke on section 182 of the criminal code, stating that a public official may be disqualified on the ground of theft or the handling of stolen goods, including the use of third party agents and nominees for the same purposes. Asked to clarify what items are included in the declaration of assets, according to the 5th schedule of the 1999 Nigerian constitution and the code of conduct for public officers, the witness stated the following: one, that public office holders shall not maintain a bank account outside Nigeria and, two, that public office holders shall provide written declaration of assets and properties to the Code of Conduct Bureau. He explained that any property or asset declared, but found not to be linked or attributed to known income, is deemed to be evidence of a breach of the code of conduct.
Mr. Umezurike testified that the Revenue Allocation and Fiscal Commission, established by the 1999 constitution, sets the salaries for public office holders. The salaries of public office holders, which is available to the public via the official website of the commission, stipulates a basic annual salary of N849,000 for the governor, including allowances for accommodation, transport and furniture, which are, respectively, 100%, 350% and 300% of the basic salary.
On the question of the punishment prescribed for breach of the stated laws, the witness responded that these are listed in section 18 of the 5th schedule of the constitution, as well as any additional penalties prescribed by the constitution. These punishments include vacation of the office (in this case governor), seizure or forfeiture to the state of any asset or property acquired corruptly, and imprisonment.
The defence team, which had tried every ploy in the book to delay or stall proceedings, seemed dispirited, according to several witnesses in court. “It struck me as an act of desperation when the defence lawyers began to complain about the prosecution’s opening statement, specifically the allegation that Ibori had committed ‘massive theft,” said a lawyer who observed the trial. The defence lawyers claimed that the phrase ‘massive theft’ was “prejudicial” and was an attempt to “manipulate the jury.” They also requested that the court exclude all references to the EFCC investigation of Ibori, stating that it is “prejudicial and irrelevant to the London court’s investigation.”
But the lead prosecutor countered that prosecutors did not breach any court procedure, and were within their rights to emphasize any part of their evidence they saw fit. The prosecutor maintained that the extent of the crime committed by Ibori was too serious to be described as dishonesty, hence the use of the phrase ‘massive theft’. In addition, the prosecutors disclosed that they have enormous evidence gathered by the Metropolitan Police, which painstakingly document how Ibori’s looted funds were brought to the UK.
The hearing continues tomorrow (3rd March 2010), with the defence team cross-examining the prosecution witness.
The case is being presented before a jury of 12 randomly selected members of the British public. The jurors were called in about 3:25p.m. (London time), following which the prosecution team called in Mr. Chima Umezurike as their first witness in the case. The witness, a lawyer who is a member of both the Nigerian and English bars, testified on the Nigerian constitutional requirements and code of conduct for public office holders in Nigeria, including governors.
Mr. Umezurike was asked to explain the grounds on which a governor may be disqualified from public office. He spoke on section 182 of the criminal code, stating that a public official may be disqualified on the ground of theft or the handling of stolen goods, including the use of third party agents and nominees for the same purposes. Asked to clarify what items are included in the declaration of assets, according to the 5th schedule of the 1999 Nigerian constitution and the code of conduct for public officers, the witness stated the following: one, that public office holders shall not maintain a bank account outside Nigeria and, two, that public office holders shall provide written declaration of assets and properties to the Code of Conduct Bureau. He explained that any property or asset declared, but found not to be linked or attributed to known income, is deemed to be evidence of a breach of the code of conduct.
Mr. Umezurike testified that the Revenue Allocation and Fiscal Commission, established by the 1999 constitution, sets the salaries for public office holders. The salaries of public office holders, which is available to the public via the official website of the commission, stipulates a basic annual salary of N849,000 for the governor, including allowances for accommodation, transport and furniture, which are, respectively, 100%, 350% and 300% of the basic salary.
On the question of the punishment prescribed for breach of the stated laws, the witness responded that these are listed in section 18 of the 5th schedule of the constitution, as well as any additional penalties prescribed by the constitution. These punishments include vacation of the office (in this case governor), seizure or forfeiture to the state of any asset or property acquired corruptly, and imprisonment.
The defence team, which had tried every ploy in the book to delay or stall proceedings, seemed dispirited, according to several witnesses in court. “It struck me as an act of desperation when the defence lawyers began to complain about the prosecution’s opening statement, specifically the allegation that Ibori had committed ‘massive theft,” said a lawyer who observed the trial. The defence lawyers claimed that the phrase ‘massive theft’ was “prejudicial” and was an attempt to “manipulate the jury.” They also requested that the court exclude all references to the EFCC investigation of Ibori, stating that it is “prejudicial and irrelevant to the London court’s investigation.”
But the lead prosecutor countered that prosecutors did not breach any court procedure, and were within their rights to emphasize any part of their evidence they saw fit. The prosecutor maintained that the extent of the crime committed by Ibori was too serious to be described as dishonesty, hence the use of the phrase ‘massive theft’. In addition, the prosecutors disclosed that they have enormous evidence gathered by the Metropolitan Police, which painstakingly document how Ibori’s looted funds were brought to the UK.
The hearing continues tomorrow (3rd March 2010), with the defence team cross-examining the prosecution witness.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });