A federal High Court sitting in Lagos has fixed March 15, to deliver judgment on the human rights violation suit filed by Mr. Rickey Tarfa, SAN, against the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, its Acting Chairman, Ibrahim Magu and two operatives of the agency.
The presiding judge, Justice Mohammed Idris fixed the date shortly after entertaining arguments from both parties in the suit.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, had indicted Mr. Ricky Tarfa for allegedly bribing Justice Mohammed Yunusa of the Federal High Court with the sum of two hundred and twenty five thousand naira, when he was still sitting at Lagos Division of the court.
The EFCC made the submission in its evidence in the human rights violation suit filed by Mr. Tarfa against the commission, its Acting Chairman, Ibrahim Magu and two operatives of the agency before the court.
The trial judge, Justice Idris had earlier fixed the 29th of last month, for judgment in the suit when Mr. Tarfa filed another application seeking to tender new evidence in order to exonerate himself from the bribery allegation leveled against him.
At the proceedings, where the EFCC was expected to respond to the new evidence tendered by the accused, the applicant’s counsel, Mr. Bolaji Ayorinde, SAN, who represented Mr. Tarfa, informed the court that the EFCC had served them with a counter affidavit to their application.
Mr. Ayorinde, who argued that the counter affidavit response of the EFCC did not correspond with the application they filed before the court, urged the court to strike out all the unverified evidence filed against his client, pointing out that the issue before the court was about the unlawful arrest of his client on the 5th of last month.
Responding, the EFCC counsel, Mr. Wahab Shittu said the agency was operating within its Code of conduct, explaining that Mr. Tarfa was arrested after his attempt to obstruct the agency from arresting wanted suspects.
Mr. Shittu explained to the court that the agency granted administrative bail to Mr. Tarfa the same day but he failed to meet up with the requirements.
Under cross-examination, Mr. Tarfa had earlier admitted that he gave the judge the money to support the burial of his father-in-law before the new evidence that it was one Yunusa Awwal who owned the account that the EFCC claimed to belong to the judge.
Some parts of the paragraph in the counter affidavit which the EFCC filed against the new evidence indicted a different SAN for bribing the same judge.
The presiding judge, Justice Mohammed Idris fixed the date shortly after entertaining arguments from both parties in the suit.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, had indicted Mr. Ricky Tarfa for allegedly bribing Justice Mohammed Yunusa of the Federal High Court with the sum of two hundred and twenty five thousand naira, when he was still sitting at Lagos Division of the court.
The EFCC made the submission in its evidence in the human rights violation suit filed by Mr. Tarfa against the commission, its Acting Chairman, Ibrahim Magu and two operatives of the agency before the court.
The trial judge, Justice Idris had earlier fixed the 29th of last month, for judgment in the suit when Mr. Tarfa filed another application seeking to tender new evidence in order to exonerate himself from the bribery allegation leveled against him.
At the proceedings, where the EFCC was expected to respond to the new evidence tendered by the accused, the applicant’s counsel, Mr. Bolaji Ayorinde, SAN, who represented Mr. Tarfa, informed the court that the EFCC had served them with a counter affidavit to their application.
Mr. Ayorinde, who argued that the counter affidavit response of the EFCC did not correspond with the application they filed before the court, urged the court to strike out all the unverified evidence filed against his client, pointing out that the issue before the court was about the unlawful arrest of his client on the 5th of last month.
Responding, the EFCC counsel, Mr. Wahab Shittu said the agency was operating within its Code of conduct, explaining that Mr. Tarfa was arrested after his attempt to obstruct the agency from arresting wanted suspects.
Mr. Shittu explained to the court that the agency granted administrative bail to Mr. Tarfa the same day but he failed to meet up with the requirements.
Under cross-examination, Mr. Tarfa had earlier admitted that he gave the judge the money to support the burial of his father-in-law before the new evidence that it was one Yunusa Awwal who owned the account that the EFCC claimed to belong to the judge.
Some parts of the paragraph in the counter affidavit which the EFCC filed against the new evidence indicted a different SAN for bribing the same judge.
No comments:
Post a Comment