WELCOME TO 2014: MESSAGE TO DPA MEMBERS

WELCOME TO 2014: MESSAGE TO DPA MEMBERS

“CONGRATULATIONS” is the word most appropriate for the members of the DPA as the first year of the group’s existence comes to an end, and a new year begins. DPA was established in February of 2013. Within ten months in the first year, the group has grown from a few members to 11,200 members. No other group in the social media or any virtual community has grown that fast, given our circumstances. That in itself is enough for every member of DPA to feel proud. From the bottom of my heart, and I speak for all our admin members as well, I thank all members of DPA for their continued support and relentless effort toward the growth of the group. Too many of you have done so much for the group that it would be hard to mention names. However, I would make an exception and mention Emma KcChinedu Amucha for the extraordinary support and services he has rendered so tirelessly to DPA. We are grateful. The New Year is going to be a watershed and a defining period for our group. Though it is clear that we have made some landmark progress in establishing ourselves as a serious, diverse and professional group, we still have a number of attainable challenges ahead of us. The performance of our group so far only speaks to our collective passion and commitment to justice, liberty, due process and human development and progress. Our strength comes form our diversity and sense of equality amongst ourselves and in our perception of others. We maintain our principle of equality of all humans regardless of gender, ethnicity, language, religion, nationality, age, disability or life style. We shall continue to build our membership and we expect to reach 50,000 members by the end of 2014. We shall also continue to rework and upgrade our governance and administrative structures to reflect our diversity and democracy in the group. The task for DPA and the challenges we face are enormous. It is impossible for one person to handle them. I can assure you that we have a team. As we go into 2014, there is already a plan, in advanced stage, to wean the group away from my direct and detailed management and supervision. Indeed, it could not be otherwise. We need a strong team of professionals to help. We need money to run the group. We need management and organizational expertise to manage the needs of our members. We need project development personnel to fashion and develop programs of action for the group. So, inevitably, it would be impossible for one person to run DPA. And besides, DPA is a participatory group. We expect in 2014 to carry out a number of projects aimed at upgrading the Nigerian criminal justice system and the legal system as a whole in order to deliver justice to thousands of people currently deprived. Legal education and information sharing remain important source of empowerment for our members and the general public. We expect to initiate a number of programs aimed at continuous education of members and the public on various legal issues and concerns. This would be consistent with our motto: “If you don’t know your rights, you may as well not have them”. We want to give our members and the general public greater awareness and knowledge about their rights and how to protect those rights in case of threats that undermine their liberties. Again, I congratulate our members and I assure you of a great year ahead of us. Ephraim Emeka Ugwuonye, Esquire
President, ECULAW GROUP
Founder and Principal Administrator, DPA.

THE CASE OF A NIGERIAN-BORN DOCTOR CHARGED WITH RAPE OF HIS PATIENT IN HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT – LESSONS TO LEARN. By Emeka Ugwonye, Esquire

THE CASE OF A NIGERIAN-BORN DOCTOR CHARGED WITH RAPE OF HIS PATIENT IN HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT – LESSONS TO LEARN.

In 2012, the state board that disciplines doctors in the State of Connecticut cited "overwhelming'' forensic evidence on Tuesday as it revoked the license of Dr. Edwin Njoku of East Hartford, charged with rape of his female patience.

Dr, Njoku’s lawyer, Mr. Richard Brown, argued for the Medical Examining Board to postpone action until after the criminal case – but board members said Njoku never formally invoked his right to ask for a postponement. Instead, the board noted, Njoku went ahead with a hearing. In other words, the Board relied on a technicality – that the doctor never “formally” invoked his right to ask for a postponement. Also, the board spoke of overwhelming forensic evidence, which might have just been a matter of opinion for a board that had made up its mind. If it ended here, this would have been a simple case of another Nigerian doctor found to have violated the rules of medical profession and probably acted stupidly too. But the case has another twist to it.

In August of 2013, the court acquitted Dr. Njoku of rape, but found him guilty of lesser offenses. That means that the board might have been hasty and rushed to reach its findings of “overwhelming” forensic evidence. Note hat they did not find his sperms inside her, as the woman’s allegations might have suggested.

It is important to note that given the fact that the board’s decision is based on a lower standard of proof (clear and convince evidence) rather that the standard for criminal conviction (beyond reasonable doubt), it is possible for the board to find him guilty, even though the criminal court would not.

Yet something remains disturbing about this case. The Board's decision most likely affected his criminal trial. He was acquitted of the rape charge, which the Board based its decision on. Doctor's fluids and DNA are easily transferable to their patients. It is likely that great injustice was done to this doctor. It is that he had something going with the woman. He probably jilted her and she cried rape. Note that his semen was never found inside of her.

Note that her testimony was disproved by science. "During a seven-day trial that included tears, angry words and sexually graphic dialogue, the patient testified that Njoku got on top of her as she lay on an examination table and raped her." But his sperms were not found in her. And if she lied in key area, why would the jury believe her? This was a trial with many twists. “The verdict suggested that jurors believed that Njoku put his mouth on the woman's breast in an East Hartford exam room on Oct. 22, 2011.” Dr. Njoku “testified that it was the woman who made sexual advances, reaching into his pants and grabbing him”. His lawyers “painted a picture of an accuser with mental problems and a drug dependency”. “Njoku's DNA was in dried saliva found on the woman. His DNA also was found in semen stains on the jeans the woman was wearing, but none was found inside her body”.

The trial and verdict were further complicated by the rules of evidence that apply in the State of Connecticut. "And it was very difficult to explain to [Dr. Njoku] why the state was permitted to bring in [other] accusers of his but why he couldn't bring up other facts and factoids about the alleged victim in this case," according to his lawyer. “Another hurdle for the defense was a state law that prohibits the jury from hearing information about other people with whom the patient might have had sex before the alleged rape. The DNA of at least two people besides Njoku was found on the woman, Pattis said in court when the jury wasn't in the room.” The trial was also full of some drama and theatrics. For instance, the lawyer to the doctor had to lie on the table and the floor of the courtroom to demonstrate to the jury that the story of the rape victim could not have been possible. Also, there is a lesson to learn – obstruction of justice could be a serious charge. There was evidence that the doctor send a pastor to talk to the victim for her to drop the charges. So, normally, an accused person may not communicate with the complainant once a charge has been filed. But the bigger lesson here is the wisdom and ethics of doctors avoiding all forms of sexual contact with their patients. If a patient grabs you, make a big issue out of it. Report to the police immediately before she does. Also note that once the jury read the verdict, the judge increased the bail bond of the doctor, meaning that he was taken back into custody until he would pay the new bail bond. For lawyers reading this report, I would explain that. The bail set before the trial was low and designed to make sure that the doctor would not be in detention during his trial in accordance with the presumption of innocence. But once found guilty, though not sentenced, two things occurred in the process. First, the risk that he would flee is greater. Second, having been convicted, he is no longer presumed innocent and his detention henceforth would not offend the presumption of innocence.

PRESIDENT JONATHAN SHOULD ANSWER THE ALLEGATIONS OF PRESIDENT OBASANJO.

Against any position to the contrary, President Jonathan has a moral, political and even legal obligation to respond to the allegations made by President Obasanjo in the latter’s open letter. Jonathan’s delay or refusal to respond is suspicious and dangerous. Worse, it makes the allegations seem admitted as true.

Obasanjo’s open letter allegations, from whatever angle you view them and notwithstanding that those allegations are probably self-serving, are weighty and ominous. All the issues raised in that letter constitute the heart and soul of the controversy facing Nigeria today and directing its future. They touch on the essence of the Nigerian State, the relationship between government and the governed, and between the various segments of the Nigerian society. It is to the Nigerian people that President Jonathan owes the obligation to respond, and not necessarily to Obasanjo.

President Jonathan’s refusal or delay in responding has already led to some awkward events. For instance, the letter alleged to have been written by Obasanjo’s daughter to her father, would not have assumed the significance it did were it not that some people sympathetic to President Jonathan had mistakenly assumed it was a victory to Jonathan. They believed that Ms. Obasanjo’s letter had taken the place of President Jonathan’s response. But no position could be more misguided than that. Iyabo Obasanjo is not President Jonathan. She has no public obligation to respond in place of the President. And clearly she did not really respond. At the best, she only aired her anger toward her father, albeit on maters that are partly of political import. Ms. Obasanjo’s letter only impugns the motive and dispositions of Obasanjo without addressing the specific allegations made against this President.

Also, it is natural to conclude that the President’s silence over the matter has made it easy for Ms. Obasanjo to deny that she ever wrote the letter, which immediately cast suspicion on the President and his men as to who could have authored that letter, if indeed it was not Ms. Obasanjo. In any event, it is quite belittling of the President for it to be said that the Nigerian President was saved from these allegations by the fortuitous actions of Iyabo Obasanjo. Such would be the kind of position the President would avoid being in.

So, President Jonathan must respond. He should have the capacity to respond. He should have the resources and opportunity to respond. Above all he owes it to the Nigerian people to respond. One way he could respond is to allow a press interview where the journalists would be free to ask him questions on the allegations made by President Obasanjo. And the best time to respond is now, not much later.

One issue on the minds of many over these things has been in connection with Obasanjo’s motives and methods. If Obasanjo had set out to present himself as an honest Nigerian statesman who wished Nigeria well or who was genuinely concerned about Nigeria’s interest, it is clear that he failed. Obasanjo is not perceived favorably for several reasons. And it could be said that he has hurt his image more by his letter to President Jonathan.

First and foremost, Obasanjo did worse than any other President in Nigeria’s history, given the extraordinary opportunities he had. Second, Obasanjo, as a President, was extremely corrupt and he left office one of the richest men in Africa, all based on illegal and shameful accumulation of wealth. Also, Obasanjo was a brutal dictator, who supplanted the constitution and rule of law at every opportunity. On fighting corruption, Obasanjo was no better than Jonathan has been, except perhaps that Obasanjo lied better about his anti-corruption policies. The EFCC that Obasanjo established was merely an excuse to have his own private strike force for dealing with political opponents. Even today, Obasanjo’s collusive relationship with the EFCC probably remains strong. And the effort to blackmail President Jonathan over his anti-corruption effort is probably something initiated by the leadership of the EFCC in order to force Jonathan to release funds to the EFCC, which is understandably broke.

As I began, I end by I reiterating that the President of Nigerian has a solemn obligation to respond publicly to the allegations made against him by his predecessor President. He cannot stay quiet. That would serve him badly and that would be a betrayal of his compact with the people of Nigeria.

ME AND THE EFCC - I STILL REMEMBER

ME AND THE EFCC - I STILL REMEMBER 

Two years ago today, I was detained at the EFCC cell in Lagos, which was the second round of my detention. I was detained the first time because a Nigerian Ambassador in Washington promised to help Mrs. Farida Waziri, the then head of the EFCC improve her dwindling image in Washington. And he asked a favor of her - to detain me over a dispute between my law firm in Washington and the Embassy of Nigeria. They detained me in Abuja. 

I fought them from within their cells for 3 months. They disobeyed the court order that ordered for me to be set free. But after three months of such unlawful detention, they ran out of tricks. I was released. But I did not stop fighting them. They thought I would just go away. But they didn't know me well enough. 

I fought them from within their cells for 3 months. They disobeyed the court order that ordered for me to be set free. But after three months of such unlawful detention, they ran out of tricks. I was released. But I did not stop fighting them. They thought I would just go away. But they didn't know me well enough.

As I continued the fight against the EFCC leadership for corruption and abuse of the rights of Nigerians, they plotted again to detain me. On October 26, 2011, they detained me again, this time in Lagos. Again, they played every trick in their dirty books to delay my release, even after the court in Lagos ordered for me to be released.

Two years after, I look back at the EFCC and notice that every prediction I have made about that commission is coming true. The EFCC leadership and offers are the most corrupt Nigerians ever. They are 10 times worse that the people they claim to be arresting. I recall below certain encounters I had with them as a detainee.

Most Nigerians would never understand how really dump the EFCC leaders are. Do you know that on one occasion Mrs. Farida Waziri decided to lock up her driver and bodyguard in the same cell where I was. I will never forget that day. First and foremost, all the inmates were very respectful to me and they treated me with a lot of difference. They made me their leader and spokesman immediately I got there. The inmates were all eager to help me, to be nice to me, etc. Most of them believed I would be in a position to help them get out of the detention or even help them with their cases. They had never seen anybody before look the EFCC leaders in the eyes and chastise them.

The EFCC senior staff were afraid to come to the cell because I would always question them and castigate them and demand for better treatment of the inmates and the release of some of them who have been either ill or too manifestly abused. At some point, it seemed I was no longer interested in my own freedom, as I spent time and money helping the other inmates instead. The inmates really loved me. I saw how even poor people tried to share their things with me, and I had to fight hard to stop them. They knew I couldn't eat their food or drink the sachet water they drank. They made effort to make sure I was okay. But I also made sure I never became a burden to any of them. I stayed cheerful all the time. I teased them. I encouraged those who were down in spirit. I told them stories about life in America. I listened to stories about their families. I helped them understand their cases and the sort of defenses they had. I advised them on how to deal with the EFCC officers, etc.

They wanted to wash my clothes and do everything for me. But I didn't let them. I insisted on washing my own clothes. Even when the EFCC leaders stupidly placed me in the female section of the cell (so I would stop "brainwashing" the men), just to punish me, the ladies were so so eager to help me. They all loved me too. Indeed, the ladies wanted to wash my clothes. The ladies were unstoppable. I realized from that how much difficult it is stop determined women. Once a woman makes up her mind, you are wasting your time trying to stop. The ladies insisted on assisting me in every way they could. I would tell them I was okay and that I didn't need anything. But they would insist that I should have coffee or tea or stuff, even some Nigerian food that really made me sick because I hadn't been eating them for over 20 years. And the ladies were really very happy when I shared personal stories with them. Otherwise, when we talked, it was mostly about their cases. And something else too. The ladies were so happy to act couriers for smuggling out my prison notes (which will be published soon). It was much easier with ladies as couriers because they were not searched as strictly as the men couriers of my writings.

Back to the main story: Farida Waziri locked up her driver and bodyguards in the cell for insubordination. What did the men do? They had worked for a whole day and came home, only to be given no food. (They lived in her household and they ate there with all the other personal staff). The two men mildly voiced their unhappiness. They were thrown into the cell because they dared to ask why they were not given food for the day after a hard day labor.

I remember that evening, when one of the inmates came to me in the cell and said: "Barrister, Barrister, we have some important inmates you might be interested in knowing about". He was referring to Farida Waziri's driver and bodyguard. I advised him to make sure they were well settled down and to make sure they had some food from any food around, and if not, they should take money from me to send for food for them. In fact, when I heard their story, I arranged for them to have food so much as they could eat.

The next morning, the men were ready to be interviewed by me. I interviewed every inmate that came into the cell while I was there, once he settled down. Upon interviewing these men, I was able to obtain a treasure of information about Mrs. Farida Waziri's personal life and how she ran the EFCC. I already had a good idea how she ran the Commission. I needed information about her personal life. And the men were most helpful. First, I had to make sure they were sufficiently indignant for the way they were treated by Mrs. Farida Waziri. And I had to make sure that I got just the truth about her life, without exaggerations. And as a lawyer, I know how to examine a witness and be able to extract useful and accurate information. The men were police officers and they really didn't have to exaggerate anything, as the truth was weird enough to shock the conscience.

In the three day period the men spent in the cell, I knew every guesthouse and location where Mrs. Farida Waziri had sex with any of her three steady boyfriends (all married men), where those men work etc. (Note she is a married woman). I also knew that her husband, Senator Waziri, was suffering from advanced prostate. I learned she was a heavy drinker and used drugs. I learned where her children worked and how they got the jobs. It was a gold mine of information. I also knew through Mrs. Waziri's activities who was doing what in the EFCC, and I knew about the few younger male staff of the EFCC she was sleeping with. She had this young-boys scout around her whom she used for sexual pleasures. I would have wondered how a woman at her age could manage such high libido. But when you assess the effect of alcohol and drugs on the body, you would understand the possibilities.

I know a lot about the EFCC, the psychology of the officers and the dispositions of the agency. That made it possible for me to say things about the EFCC and be right down the line. I made extensive notes about my detention experience. I am working on a book that would expose all of them.

NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT ON BODE GEORGE – THE BIGGEST FAILURE, YET THE MOST PROFOUND TRIUMPH OF JUSTICE.

NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT ON BODE GEORGE – THE BIGGEST FAILURE, YET THE MOST PROFOUND TRIUMPH OF JUSTICE.

By Emeka Ugwuonye, Esquire

December 14, 2013

Lagos, Nigeria

This year has marked a profound period in the history of the Nigerian criminal justice system. Barely months after the shocking case of Al Mustapha’s acquittal after 14 years in prison, yesterday’s Supreme Court reversal of the conviction of Bode George ought to shake the Nigerian justice system to its foundations.

In these two cases, the Nigerian system of justice twice failed colossally. And twice, the system triumphed against itself in an amazing combination of tragedy and glory. That which leaves one aghast and in utter shame is also that which leaves one cheerful and hopeful. Without a doubt, the Nigerian Supreme Court again rescued Nigeria by upholding the constitution against the odds.

Why is the victory of Bode George a tragedy, nonetheless? The reason is that Nigerians had hoped that the corrupt Nigerian leaders could he somehow held accountable in the courts of law, just like anybody else. They had looked to the case of George as an actualization of that hope. But that was wrong, unfortunately. The people are thus unsatisfied that the powerful, but corrupt, leaders of the country remain totally untouchable.

But George’s case was never set as a genuine test of justice in Nigeria. It was a travesty both in framing and prosecution, laced with ironies all the way. Explaining what happened in that case to an ordinary person is quite a challenge, without losing some nuances and intricacies that were involved.

The Lagos State High Court is largely under the firm control of the Lagos State Governor or the Executive. Even though the constitution tries to give the judges some measure of independence from the executive, the judges are left largely at the mercy and under the control of the executive arm of the state government. Through the ability to allocate lands and other resources and more, most judges would be mindful not to be in the bad books of the state executive. Also, through the ability to appoint judges and the particular manner that power has been exercised in Lagos over the years, there is no question that an average judge feels beholden to the Governor. A typical high court judge sees his happiness tied significantly to the pleasure of the Governor.

Incidentally, Lagos State was controlled by a Governor from a party in opposition to the party that ruled at the federal level. Lagos is a critical piece of political territory in Nigeria. The opposition party in control of Lagos wanted to keep Lagos at all costs, while the party at the center wanted to take Lagos. Bode George was at some point the arrowhead for achieving the ambitions of the party at the federal level over Lagos.

A perfect opportunity arose when through series of inconsistencies at the federal level George got indicted in Lagos in what was to be one of those show trials that was never intended to get anywhere. But this time, there was finally an opportunity for Lagos to achieve an outcome not even fully appreciated by the EFCC, which initiated the indictment. Convicting George and sending him to jail in Lagos was going to solve a lot of political problem for the part that ruled Lagos.

One has wondered what level of coordination existed between the Lagos Executive and the Lagos Judiciary over this case. The fact is that the Executive did not have to say even one word to the presiding trial judge for him to appreciate the significance of having George as a suspect in a jailable offense in his court. It is logical that conscious parallelism would have kicked in and everything became a fate accompli.

But there seemed to be the existence of a plot and coordination beyond mere parallelism, coincidental or concerted. The manner the charges were framed remains curious. The prosecutor escaped lightly the obligation to present any evidence of fraud or an indication that Bode George benefitted personally from all the corrupt offense he was alleged to have committed. How come that the entire effort to jail the man did not include a demonstration that he stole money or that he received even a kobo or that any of the companies that were awarded contract under his reign belonged to him? That was troubling.

The only explanation for such a dodgy and curious framing of a charge and proof of evidence was that the whole goal was to convict him in any manner least likely to raise serious appealable issues. In other words, the goal was just to get him to jail at all costs, and not to address any substantive issue of justice.

Once Bode George was at the mercy of the courts, things moved in the only direction they were designed to move. He got convicted of “anything possible”. His effort to get a stay of judgment, which ought to be well justified, given the shaky legal basis for his conviction, was denied, through what was later to be seen as the overbearing position and influence of the President of the Court of Appeal, presumed to be in sympathy with the party that controlled Lagos. And once the Court of Appeal refused George’s request for a stay, it boxed itself in – the Court of Appeal had to uphold the conviction to justify its questionable denial of stay. This conclusion, though not the only possible explanation, is logical and reasonable.

To fully understand the tragedy of this case, let’s look at the judgment of the Supreme Court and the language is used. The court pointed out that “The prosecution knew the odious phrase to demean [the accused/George]. From the word go, it must be presumed that when [George and others] were put on trial it was on the basis that there was no prima facie case which showed intention to defraud.”

The Supreme Court pointed out that the prosecuting counsel manipulated the charges with intention to malign the accused with the stigma of fraud. Yet there as no evidence for that. The case was essentially one that required evidence of fraud. Yet no such evidence existed and no such evidence was adduced. Indeed, the charge was defective and George should not have been charged to court on the basis of the allegations and the lack of evidence.

According to the Supreme Court, “Intention to defraud was made an element of the offense charged. Yet learned counsel for the respondent said evidence in respect of same was ‘neither here nor there’. “…. the case ought not to proceed to trial. Such action does not reflect well on our jurisprudence. A court of law should be weary of such practice.”

The Supreme Court then goes forward to make pronouncements that damned and ridiculed both the trial judge and the justices of the Court of Appeal, thus:

“Let me state it in passing that their Lordships of the court below, with due diffidence, did not indicate the process of reasoning by which they implied that the intention to defraud had been proved. This court has held that the trial courts must arrive at their verdicts through process of reasoning which is analytical and not only to command confidence, but is punctuated with logical thinking based on cogent and admissible evidence and in which facts leading to the conviction of the accused are clearly found and legal inference clearly drawn”.

The highest court basically stated that the lower courts did not meet the basis standard of logical reasoning in its rationalization of its verdict. They reasoned like illiterate traders in Onyingbo market, more or less. That is bad enough and that is what calls for investigation into what happened. This case was not just an ordinary judicial error within the margin of judicial discretion. It smells of a wholesale subversion of Nigeria’s criminal justice system. The Supreme Court termed the entire trial a “complete mistrial” on a case that rested “on shifting sand”.

Anyone familiar with the characteristic restraint of Supreme Court justices in referring to the conduct of lower judges and the state prosecutor will understand the extreme nature of the direct rebuke of the lower courts by the Supreme Court. There is thus a need for a complete investigation into what went wrong in this case that caused it to threaten our jurisprudence, as the Supreme Court rightly observed.

Yet, despite the huge problems posed by the development of this case and the overwhelming injustice in the trial, conviction and punishment of an innocent man, this case ended in a triumph for justice and rule of law in Nigeria. The Supreme, as was done in the case of Governor Amechi that led his becoming a governor, saved the country and vindicated justice by restoring the supremacy of the constitution. The justices are indeed the guardians of the constitution.

NIGERIAN COURT OF APPEAL RULED AND SENATOR BODE OLA FLOORED THE EFCC YET AGAIN.

Beneath the gaze of the Nigerian public, there has been raging a fierce battle of nerves and principles between the Nigeria’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and Senator Festus Olabode Ola in the court of law since the past five years. It has been a cat and mouse, brute force on the part of the EFCC versus intelligence and determination on the part of Senator Ola.

It started in March of 2008, when the EFCC made that fateful decision to arrest Senator Ola. It continued through November 26, 2013, when the Court of Appeal sitting in Jos affirmed the judgment of the lower court awarding millions to Senator Ola. Within that period, it has been a struggle between justice and injustice. Justice prevailed and Senator Ola won again against the EFCC, now in the case, which shall be making the law reports as EFCC vs. Friendly Hotels Limited and Festus Olabode Ola, Appeal No. CA/145/2012.

As a background to this, in 2008, while Senator Ola was in court fighting to claim his electoral mandate to represent Ekiti State at Senate, the political opponents of the Senator induced some officers of the EFCC to pursue Senator Ola with a view to eliminating him as a political contender. In what was a blatant manipulation of outcome in an electoral dispute, the EFCC officers swooped into the Friendly Hotels, in Ado Ekiti, owned by the Senator. The officers disrupted normal hotel business, carted away the computers at the hotel’s business center and arrested the Senator. Their pretext for such a naked show of crude force was that they suspected that cyber scammers were using the hotel’s business center. No single such scammer was ever arrested.

In the 2008 incident, no crime was ever established against the Senator. It was just that he and the manager of the hotel were arrested, ruffled and supposedly scared by the EFCC officers. No crime was ever alleged. Their reason was just to silence him politically. None of the computers taken away from his hotel was found with any incriminating evidence. Indeed, the reversible and inconsistent EFCC wrote him a letter acknowledging that nothing was found on the hotel’s compuetrs. Yet, the EFCC refused to return the computers or to apologize for such a blatant abuse of police power. Despite his mild and gentle qualities, the Senator could not accept such indignity and humiliation unchallenged.

The Senator filed a petition at the Federal High Court to enforce his fundamental rights against the EFCC.

In 2010, the Federal High Court sitting in Jos granted judgment to Senator Ola, finding that the rights of the Senator were blatantly violated by the EFCC. The court awarded Senator Ola a judgment of 50 million naira against the EFCC. That remains the biggest judgment any Nigerian court has awarded against the EFCC for violation of rights. And the arrogant and power-drunk EFCC was not going to take that without retaliating.

The EFCC management and staff took three drastic retaliatory steps against Senator Ola for defeating them in a court of law. Before anything else, the EFCC simply refused to honor the judgment. They refused to pay Senator Olo. As the Senator tried to garnishee the accounts of the EFCC, the officers made the first retaliatory move.

On November 24, 2011, Mr. Lamorde, then the Head of Operations of the EFCC, invited Senator Ola for discussions for the purpose of making payment to him as per the judgment. When the Senator arrived with his Personal Assistant for the meeting as requested by Lamorde, the officers of the EFCC arrested him. They maltreated him. They humiliated him. They denied him his medication. They bundled him into a vehicle and drove him right from the EFCC Abuja office to the airport and flew him to Lagos where they detained him in a cell in their cell. It was in this cell that Senator Ola met me, while I was also detained.

After two weeks of unlawful detention, the EFCC filed false criminal charges against the Senator. After a brief trial, the charges were dismissed by the court in the most devastating judgment ever. The judge declared in unmistakable words that the EFCC had persecuted Senator Ola and suppressed his rights. As a lawyer of over 20 years standing in the bar, I have never directly observed a judgment in which the judge, while delivering a judgment, paused and posed the question: “Why did you charge this man to court when you knew there was absolutely no case against him?” The judge went further to answer his own question, thus: “In my opinion, the only reason is to persecute him and to suppress him”.

While the EFCC officers were tormenting Senator Ola through the criminal justice system, they also went after the judge that delivered judgment in favor of the Senator. They threatened him and filed a petition against him before the National Judicial Council, falsely accusing the judge of bias and prejudice. At the same time the EFCC made the mistake of appealing against the excellent and well-reasoned judgment.

All these measures failed one after another. The criminal charges the EFCC field against the Senator were dismissed preliminarily in a damning judgment against the EFCC. Also, Senator Ola has filed a suit for malicious prosecution against the EFCC and its officers. Further, EFCC’s petition against the judge is baseless and will not get anywhere. It remained the last measure by the EFCC, and that was the appeal it filed against the judgment awarding millions against it. On November 26, 2013, the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the lower court. Now the EFCC has to cough up millions to pay Senator Ola.

What happened in these cases is a clear proof that the EFCC is a failed agency. It is dysfunctional and corrupt. In a relentless demonstration of arrogance and impunity, it pursued an innocent man with emotion-laden sense of vendetta and vengeance. In the process, it stumbled and fell at every stage. For instance, if the EFCC had not gone after the Senator with those false charges, it would not have made itself amenable to malicious prosecution suite, which it may lose. And by appealing against a judgment purely out of emotions and sentiments, the EFCC officers have worsened the position of the Commission in this country.

If they had left that judgment at the level of the High Court, the judgment would have amounted to much less in Nigerian legal history. Whereas a judgment of the High Court is not binding on other High Courts, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is binding on all High Courts in Nigeria. Senator Ola’s newly won victory in the Court of Appeal has now set a standard which other high courts must follow, and would now be on law reports with all the adverse record against the EFCC. This is the first time a Nigerian High Court would award such amount in damages against the EFCC. And this is the first time that sort of judgment would be upheld by the Court of Appeal against the EFCC.

There is no doubt that a floodgate has now been opened against the EFCC and their camp would be flooded soon. Many Nigerians have suffered untold hardship in the hands of the EFCC. All these victims can now ride on the solid judgment in the Ola’s case to make claims against the EFCC. In that sense, Senator Ola has indeed made important contributions to the rule of law and justice.