The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has preferred a 30-count charge against a Federal High Court Judge, Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia, and Godwin Obla, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN).
In the charge listed as number LD/367/C/16, Ofili-Ajumogobia was listed as first defendant, while Obla was named as second defendant.
The defendants were said to have committed the offence on May 21, 2015 by conspiring to pervert the course of justice with N5 million.
The money was alleged to have been transferred to one Nigel & Colive Ltd. in relation to a charge number FHC/L/C/482/10.
Ajumogobia is said to be a sole signatory to Nigel & Colive Ltd.
Both defendants were said to have conspired to pervert the course of justice in contravention of the provisions of the Criminal Laws of Lagos State, 2011.
In counts one to four, Obla was said to have offered gratification by transferring the money from his company’s account, Obla & Co., domiciled with the United Bank for Africa, to Nigel & Colive.
The transfer was alleged to have been made in order to restrain a public officer from acting in exercise of her official duties.
In counts five, Ajumogobia was said to have unlawfully enriched herself by receiving a transfer of N18 million from one Arkleem Oil and Gas Ltd. in her Diamond Bank account.
In counts six to 20, the judge was alleged to have also received a transfer of monies from various outlets to her Diamond Bank account to the tune of over 788,000 dollars.
In count 29, the judge was alleged to have forged a deed of assignment between a company, County City Bricks Dev. Co. Ltd and Nigel & Colive Ltd.
In counts 30, the judge was further alleged to have made a false statement to the EFCC that she was on admission at Gold Cross Hospital at Bourdillon, Ikoyi, which statement was found to be false.
All the offences are said to be contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Laws of Lagos State, 2011 as well as the EFCC (Establishment) Act, 2004.
Meanwhile, a Federal High Court on Monday refused an ex-parte application filed by Ofili-Ajumogobia, seeking her release from the custody of EFCC.
Justice Muslim Hassan held in Lagos that the judge’s prayer could not be heard by motion ex-parte.
Hassan said that he was of the view that the interest of justice would better be served if the EFCC was put on notice.
He directed Ofili-Ajumogobia to put the anti-graft agency on notice.
Hassan fixed further hearing on the case for November 28.
Also, Obla, on Monday, asked a Federal High Court sitting in Lagos, to declare his continued detention by the commission, as unlawful.
Obla, through his counsel, Mr Ifedayo Adedipe (SAN), brought an application, praying the court to declare his continued detention by the commission as unlawful.
In his argument, Adedipe urged the court to hold that the continued detention of his client and the seizure of his mobile phones constituted an infringement on his rights to liberty and ownership of property.
He said his client, who was once a prosecutor for the EFCC was invited to the commission on Nov. 8 and was unduly detained till date.
According to him, the phones of the applicant were seized, contrary to constitutional provisions to own property.
“The detention of Obla from November 8 till when the EFCC obtained a magisterial order for further detention is a gross violation of his rights to personal liberty,’’ he said.
In his response, the counsel to the EFCC, Mr Rotimi Oyedepo, urged the court to dismiss the applicant’s processes for lack of merit.
Oyedepo argued that the steps taken by the EFCC were allowed by law in the dispensation of its duties.
According to him, intelligence reports showed that the applicant had a company known as Obla & Co Ltd., from which the sum of N5 million was transferred to Hon. Justice Ajumogobia through a company known as Nigel & Colive Ltd.
He said that also following intelligence reports, Ajumogobia was discovered to be the sole signatory to Nigel & Colive Ltd.
He said the money was transferred to the judge during the hearing of a case before her court with suit numbered as: FHC/L/CS/482/10.
“The mere transfer of the money to the judge during the hearing of the case before her clearly showed a mind set to unduly gratify,’’ he said.
He urged the court to hold that there existed a reasonable cause for suspicion by the commission.
“The applicant even agreed that there was a communication between him and the judge,’’ he said.
On the issue of undue detention, Oyedepo argued that on November 8 after the applicant was detained, investigations could not be concluded and so, on November 9, an application was brought before a magistrates’ court, for a remand order.
He said the court was empowered by the provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Laws, to grant a remand order for 14 days, adding that the order was given in the presence of the applicant.
He argued that the applicant did not file any application before the magistrates’ court for a variation of terms, or even an appeal against its ruling, adding that this court could not sit on appeal over the issue.
On the argument of unlawful detention, Oyedepo submitted that even the constitution allows for the liberty of individuals to be curtailed, adding that the EFCC acted in line with due provisions of the law.
On the seizure of the applicant’s mobile phones, Oyedepo argued that Section 44 (k) of the constitution allows for the temporary taking over of a property, for purposes of inquiry, adding that such right was qualified.
He, therefore, urged the court not to allow it to be used as a shield against lawful prosecution.
Justice Mohammed Idris fixed judgement for November 25.
