At the London trial of former Delta State governor and Peoples Democratic Party stalwart James Ibori, the prosecution and the defence on Monday got down to examining the finer points of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
At the London trial of former Delta State governor and Peoples Democratic Party stalwart James Ibori, the prosecution and the defence on Monday got down to examining the finer points of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });
Mr. Ibori is on trial for 13 counts of money laundering and fraud at London’s Southwark Crown Court.
Swearing in a jury has been delayed by two weeks so that the parties can argue if evidence about Mr Ibori’s alleged villainous character can be admitted. It is the prosecution’s contention that under Nigeria’s constitution Mr. Ibori should never have been allowed to be Governor of Delta State in the first place, as he had convictions for fraud and dishonesty that date back to when he lived in London in 1991.
Prosecutors produced two expert witnesses to say that section 182 of the constitution expressly forbids those who have convictions from any court in the world from holding office in Nigeria.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });
Defence counsel Nicholas Parnell QC cross-examined Osaro Eghobamien, SAN and another legal expert witness, Chima Umezuruike, teasing out an inconsistency within their interpretation of the Nigerian constitution. The defence says the prosecution’s expert witnesses are inconsistent in their interpretation of the constitution. Where it suits them, the defence says, they understand the meaning of the constitution to exclude “convictions anywhere in the world” but that on some occasions the constitution refers to convictions only within Nigeria being enough to disbar someone from office.
On one occasion, referring to paragraph 182.1D of the Constitution, Mr. Parnell got Mr. Umezuruike to admit that this inconsistency between the treatment of convictions in the rest of the world and Nigeria existed in a single sentence-clause.
Names of cases like Action Congress vs INEC and Amechi vs INEC billowed up, taking the court from wintery London and making it appear more like an Abuja Federal High Court in session on a hot summer afternoon. The defence called Alex Izinyon, SAN, a former Ibori attorney who was physically present in the London courtroom, and he took the stand. Izinyon told the court that in his view the bar on serving office allowed by the constitution referred only to convictions given by a court within Nigeria.
He raised the subject of the Ignatius Ayu Administrative Panel and showed how the case against Atiku Abubakar was thrown out in those dramatic days of late 2006 because there had been no Nigerian conviction. The Supreme Court said the indictment held by INEC to disqualify the vice president from running under the Action Congress party should be set aside.
The Nigerian system set out in the constitution, Mr Izinyon said, was not meant for the institutions of government to investigate if a man should be fit for office and free of convictions in foreign lands, but: “If people in the community know something about the man who wants to represent them, they should come forward and say there is something wrong with this man and here is the evidence’”.
Showing frustration, as he had done several times during this glimpse into the world of the Nigerian constitution, Judge Anthony Anthony Pitts asked, “But that makes no sense whatsoever, how would they know?”
After Mr. Izinyon's claim, the prosecutor, Ms. Wass, attacked, leaping on Mr Izinyon’s lengthy relationship with Mr Ibori (he represented him in legal challenges up to 2007 when he withdrew from government), a fact which although represented on Mr Izinyon’s website, was not on the official court CV provided by the defence to introduce him. As the legal arguments continue, a jury is expected to be sworn in around the 28th of February. On December 15, 2011, the court rejected Ibori’s efforts to dispense with the jury in the case.
Meanwhile, Mr. Ibori remains in custody and will appear next week. The prosecution wanted to get the learned legal opinion on constitutional matters from a Senior Advocate of Nigeria in respect of the parts of the constitution that set out who is a fit and proper person to serve as a governor in the Federal Government.
Earlier in the hearing, a mild drama took place in court exposing the state of Internet connectivity with Nigeria. The court had placed a giant TV screen, to get expert testimony from Osaro Egobanion, SAN, who told the court that the people who wrote the Nigerian constitution intended it should ensure good governance in Nigeria.
But the line kept cutting out, and the court only heard “I’m sorry I’m not hearing you?” and “What did you say? Your question did not get through clearly” and finally, “You are cracking.”
At each of these the pitch of Prosecuting Attorney Sasha Wass’ voice raised in force and resonance in a way that anyone who has tried to make a phone call in Nigeria will recognize.
Then the picture dropped, and the morning’s session was abandoned.
On December 15, the court threw out the efforts of Ibori’s defence to have the money-laundering and fraud charges he faces thrown out. They had also tried to argue that British courts lacked the jurisdiction to try him.
Mr Ibori was extradited from Dubai to the United Kingdom in April 2011, and has been in custody there since then. In addition to within-the-courtroom efforts to avoid trial or abort the case, Mr. Ibori’s associates several times last year used various online sites to attempt to pre-empt the case, spreading the misinformation that the case against Ibori had collapsed.
With all those manoeuvres now out of the way, Ibori will now finally face a trial on charges similar to those that have so far put away many of those associates and relatives who helped him while he was in office.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });