FG insists Justice Ademola, others have case to answer

 

    The Federal Government has insisted that it has established a prima facie case of gratification against Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court, his wife, Olabowale and Joe Agi (SAN), just as it urged the court to throw out a no-case submission they filed before the court.

   The defendants are standing trial before ‎Justice Jude Okeke of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory. Meanwhile, the court has reserved ruling  on the no case-submission to April 5, 2017. They are being prosecuted for alleged conspiracy, gratification and illegal possession of fire arms. After the prosecution closed its case on February 21, the defendants filed a no-case-submission, stating that there was no need for them to enter defence.

    Arguing the motion  yesterday, at the resumed hearing, counsel to the defendants represented by  Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), (Justice Ademola); Robert Clark (SAN) for Ademola’s wife and Jeph Ejinkonye,‎ counsel to Agi (SAN), told the court that since the prosecution has failed to establish a primae facie case to warrant their clients  to enter their defence, the court should uphold the no-case-submission and strike out the suit.

   In his submission, Ikpeazu maintained that the prosecution did not provide any evidence before the court to sustain the 11-count charge.

  On the count  bordering on acceptance of gratification, the counsel argued that the evidence of Prosecution Witness (PW) 16 – Babatunde Adepoju, an operative of the Department of State Services (DSS), had adequately proved that the money in question was not a bribe.

  The counsel said the witness who investigated the alleged bribe “had told the court that he could not link the alleged gratification with any case handled by Justice Ademola. There must be that link before a witness is called into the witness box to counter the link. But, in this case, there was no evidence to warrant the defendant to call his witnesses,” Ikpeazu submitted.

  He urged the court to hold that there was nothing on which any of the defendants could be called upon to enter defence and added that gratification should not be seen in isolation but must be tied to an act, which, according to him, has been dismissed by the evidence of PW 16.   He argued that the gift of N30 million could only qualify for a gratification if it was offered for inducement or as a reward for an action, but that, in the course of the witnesses’ account, nobody has succeeded in linking the said amount to any trial presided over by Justice Ademola.