Attorney General Michael Aondoakaa has resorted to desperate measures in his efforts to force to force the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) to declare former EFCC chair Nuhu Ribadu wanted.
After failing in his initial attempt in that regard, Aondoakaa surprisingly changed the government lawyer handling the case, replacing him with Mr. Anthony Malik. Malik is a personal assistant to Aondoakaa and a one-time counsel in the law office of Mr. Wole Olanipekun, the lead lawyer in Umaru Yar’adua’s presidential elections appeal case.
Malik set to work as soon as the case was called and Ribadu’s attorney, Femi Falana, indicated his readiness for the proceedings. Falana had previously notified the court of his intention to move two motions. The first was to ask the court to stay further proceedings in the case; the second, a request that the tribunal guarantee his client’s safety should it refuse the first motion.
Falana also told the tribunal that he has filed an appeal before the Court of Appeal, requesting that the tribunal recognize its inferior status in relation to the Court of Appeal. Arguing that it would amount to “judicial impertinence” should the tribunal ignore his appeal action before a superior court, Falana cited the case of Mohammed vs. Olawunmi to buttress his point that the Supreme Court frowns at such impertinence.
In response, Malik cited a rash of cases to make a case that, since Nuhu Ribadu was in hiding, he could not be making representation before the tribunal in a criminal matter. Urging the court to discountenance Falana’s application, he argued that no law enjoins the tribunal to take cognizance of the proceedings in the Court of Appeal on the issue. He cited Abacha vs. State, Adoko vs. FRN and Okeke vs. FRN to make his case.
In response, Falana warned the tribunal that Malik’s citations were designed to mislead it. In reference to Abacha vs. State, he told the tribunal that Mohammed Abacha was not in hiding; instead, Abacha’s lawyer, JB Daudu (SAN), made the application with his client, Mohammed Abacha, present in court. “So, Abacha was never in hiding,” Falana reiterated.
While stating that in the cases of Okeke and Adoko, the clients were in hiding, Falana told the tribunal that his client, Ribadu, was not in hiding. He reminded the court of its June 23rd 2009 ruling to the effect that, since Ribadu was taking classes at Oxford University in the UK, the service of the summons to his wife was proper.
The legal exchanges turned dramatic when Falana, in contending that the federal government knows Ribadu’s whereabouts, revealed that Malik, the new government lawyer, had met with Ribadu in London on May 29 2009 at an event organized by the Nigeria Liberty Forum (NLF) where Ribadu was a keynote speaker. “My colleague here met with Nuhu Ribadu. They greeted warmly and Ribadu exchanged his full contact information with Malik in my presence in London,” Falana told a bewildered court to back up his assertion that Ribadu was not in hiding.
A flustered Malik, who had gone to the United Kingdom as a spy of the Attorney General Aondoakaa, asked the tribunal to expunge the information from its records, saying, “My lord, I don’t want this reported in the media tomorrow.”
Falana further argued that the federal government ought to apply for Ribadu’s extradition if it really felt his client was hiding. He cited the Extradition Act Cap E 25 which states that when an accused person fails to submit to court summons, he shall be brought to court through extradition. He told the court that, despite the government’s apparent desperation to bring his client to trial, there was no evidence that the government had initiated any extradition procedure with regard to Ribadu. Following Falana’s revelation of Malik’s meeting with Ribadu in London, the government’s lawyer sat down after pleading that the court use its “discretion” in determining his prayers.
At that point, the tribunal chair invited Falana to move his motion seeking the tribunal’s assurance of safety and security for his client. But Falana opposed the request by the tribunal, insisting that he was only interested in the tribunal’s consideration of his motion for a “stay of proceedings.” He argued that any attempt to move another motion before the tribunal had heard and ruled on the first motion for stay of proceedings would give the erroneous impression that the first application had been considered and discarded.
He cited the case of Major Debo Bashorun vs. Nigerian Army in which a Lagos High court was berated for taking another motion when a motion of stay of proceeding (which challenged the jurisdiction of the court) had not been heard.
The court adjourned the case till October 22nd 2009.

http://www.saharareporters.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3867:aondoakaas-desperation-to-net-ribadu-leads-to-embarrassing-moment-in-court&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=18


I no fit laugh

The legal exchanges turned dramatic when Falana, in contending that the federal government knows Ribadu’s whereabouts, revealed that Malik, the new government lawyer, had met with Ribadu in London on May 29 2009 at an event organized by the Nigeria Liberty Forum (NLF) where Ribadu was a keynote speaker. “My colleague here met with Nuhu Ribadu. They greeted warmly and Ribadu exchanged his full contact information with Malik in my presence in London,” Falana told a bewildered court to back up his assertion that Ribadu was not in hiding.
A flustered Malik, who had gone to the United Kingdom as a spy of the Attorney General Aondoakaa, asked the tribunal to expunge the information from its records, saying, “My lord, I don’t want this reported in the media tomorrow.”

At that point, the tribunal chair invited Falana to move his motion seeking the tribunal’s assurance of safety and security for his client. But Falana opposed the request by the tribunal, insisting that he was only interested in the tribunal’s consideration of his motion for a “stay of proceedings.” He argued that any attempt to move another motion before the tribunal had heard and ruled on the first motion for stay of proceedings would give the erroneous impression that the first application had been considered and discarded.

smart of Falana to manouvre the tribunal chair who wanted to outsmart him