An
ex-Niger Delta militant leader, Government Ekpemupolo, alias Tompolo, has
pleaded with Justice Ibrahim Buba of a Federal High Court in Lagos to set aside
the warrant of arrest issued against him.
Justice
Buba had on January 14 issued a bench warrant against Tompolo and ordered his
arrest for failing to honour a court summons dated January 12 to appear in
respect of a 40-count of alleged N34bn fraud levelled against him and nine
others by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.
On
January 14, while all his co-accused persons were in court with their lawyers,
Tompolo was absent and was not represented by any counsel.
The
EFCC prosecutor, Festus Keyamo, had then applied under Section 131 of the
Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 for an order to arrest Tompolo and
bring him to court to answer the charges against him.
While
granting the order, Justice Buba had said there was a proof that the EFCC had
served the summons and the charge sheet on Tompolo by pasting them on the wall
of his residence at No. 1, Chief Agbanu DDPA Extension, Warri, Delta State.
The
judge ordered that Tompolo should be arrested and produced in court on February
8 to answer the charges.
But
Tompolo has filed an application through his lawyers, Mr. Tayo Oyetibo (SAN),
and Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, seeking an order of the court to set aside the warrant
of arrest issued against him, on the claim that the EFCC did not serve him with
the summons and the charge sheet.
In
the grounds of the application, Tompolo described as fictitious the address
known as No.1, Chief Agbanu DDPA Extention, Warri, Delta State, where the EFCC
said it pasted the summons and the charge sheet.
“In
the history or geography of Warri or its environs no such street name is
known,” Tompolo claimed.
His
lawyers also argued that the application filed by the EFCC to obtain the order
for substituted service was incompetent because it did not bear the seal of the
legal practitioner who signed it.
In
an affidavit filed in support of the application, one, Nsikan Udo, who was the
deponent, claimed that Tompolo resided at No. 13, Chief Agbamu Close, DDPA
Extension, Warri (Effurun), Delta State and not No. 1, Chief Agbamu DDPA
Extension, Warri, Delta State where the summons and the charge sheet were
pasted by the EFCC.
The
deponent claimed that as of January 13 when the EFCC went to paste the court
papers, Tompolo was at “a premises known as No. 1, Chief Agbamu Lane DDPA
Extension, Warri (Effurun), Delta State throughout the week beginning from 11th
January, 2016.”
“The
gate of the premises known as No. 1, Chief Agbamu Close, DDPA Extension, Warri
(Effurun), Delta is black in colour and is not perforated nor does it have a
see-through, reddish/brown gate with iron bars shown in Exhibit GE4,” Udo
claimed.
Tompolo
is therefore seeking, among others, “an order setting aside the warrant for the
arrest of the 1st accused person/applicant (Government Ekpemupolo, alias
Tompolo) issued by this court on 14th January, 2016 pursuant to the purported
service of the summons and the criminal charge instituted in this case on the
applicant.”
Adegboruwa,
in a statement, however, said his client was prepared to willingly come to
court to answer any charges preferred against him.
He
also said the Inspector- General of Police, the Chief of Army Staff and the
Navy had been notified of Tompolo’s application, “so that overzealous persons
do not take advantage of the court process to attempt to trample on his legal
rights.”
In
the charge against Tompolo and others, the EFCC accused them of conspiring to
divert various sums running into over N34bn, allegedly stolen from the Nigerian
Maritime Administration and Safety Agency to their personal use.
Charged
alongside Tompolo is the immediate past Director-General of NIMASA, Patrick
Akpobolokemi; one Kime Engozu, Rex Elem, Gregory Mbonu and Capt. Warredi
Enisuoh.
They
were charged along with four companies – Global West Vessel Specialist Limited,
Odimiri Electrical Limited, Boloboere Property and Estate Limited and Destre
Consult Limited.
The
EFCC said they acted contrary to Section 18 (a) of the Money Laundering
(Prohibition) (Amendment) Act, 2012 and were liable to punishment under Section
15 (3) of the same Act.
Source: The Punch
0 comments:
Post a Comment