Patience Jonathan’s $15.5m: Lawyers disagree over representation

There was a mild drama at the Federal High Court in Lagos
yesterday as two lawyers engaged in an argument over who to
represent four firms that pleaded guilty to laundering $15.5million
allegedly belonging to Patience Jonathan.

The companies through their representatives pleaded guilty last
September 15 and were convicted for laundering the money when they
were arraigned in a criminal charge before Justice Babs
Kuewumi.

They admitted laundering the money allegedly belonging to wife
of former President Goodluck Jonathan, Dame Patience.

But the law firm of Mike Ozekhome Chambers filed an application
on May 8 on the companies’ behalf seeking to set aside the guilty
plea.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission ( EFCC ) has filed
a counter affidavit opposing the application.

The former first lady is also praying the court to unfreeze the
accounts in a separate suit.

The companies are: Pluto Property and Investment Company Ltd
(represented by Friday Davis), Seagate Property Development and
Investment Company Ltd (represented by Agbor Baro), Trans Ocean
Property and Investment Company Ltd (represented by Dioghowori
Frederick) and Avalon Global Property Development Ltd (represented
by Taiwo Ebenezer).

EFCC arraigned them with a former Special Adviser on Domestic
Affairs to President Jonathan, Waripamo Dudafa, a lawyer, Amajuoyi
Briggs and a banker, Adedamola Bolodeoku.

Dudafa, Briggs and Bolodeoku pleaded not guilty to the 17-count
charge.

Beside the application filed by Ozekhome Chambers, another
motion to set aside the guilty plea was filed by Briggs, who was
the companies’ secretary, through his lawyer Ige Asemudara.

Yesterday, Chima Onuigbo, who stood in for Chief Mike Ozekhome
(SAN), said he was served with the prosecution’s counter affidavit
on Tuesday.

He sought an adjournment to enable the companies respond.

Another lawyer, Luke Aghanenu, also appeared for the
companies.

He claimed he was engaged by the companies’ representatives as
their authentic counsel.

According to him, he is the one who ought to speak on the
companies’ behalf, not Onuigbo.

But, Onuigbo said Mike Ozekhome Chambers was engaged by Briggs
to represent the companies.

He said Ozekhome had been appearing for the companies, saying he
was surprised by the new counsel’s appearance.

He described Aghanenu as an “interloper”, saying he should have
filed a proper application.

Resolving the issue after a long argument, Justice Kuewumi asked
Aghanenu to file a formal notice of appearance as the companies’
representatives.

Asemudara said he was also served with EFCC’s counter affidavit
on Tuesday.

Dudafa’s lawyer Gbenga Oyewole (SAN) said he was not served.

“As long as we’re involved in this proceedings we are entitled
to be served,” he said.

EFCC’s lawyer Rotimi Oyedepo said since the application was
challenging the validity of companies’ plea, it could be heard and
judgment delivered at the end of the trial.

This, he said, would be in line with Section 396 (2) of the
Administration of Criminal Justice Law of 2015.

“I apply that the trial should continue,” he said.

But, Asemudara said his client was challenging the guilty plea
and not the charge, so it should be taken first and ruling
delivered before further proceedings.

He said Oyedepo’s submission was misconceived, adding the case
of the second defendant was “intricately connected” with the fourth
to seventh defendants’ (the companies).

He accused the prosecution of delaying the case, saying previous
adjournments were at its instance.

Urging the court to hear the application and deliver judgment,
he added: “We don’t want our client to fear they were not given
fair hearing.”

Ruling, Justice Babs Kuewumi held that the application would be
heard and determined before the prosecution witness continues with
his evidence.

“Section 396 (2) which says the delivery of the ruling shall be
considered at the point of judgment does not apply to this type of
application,” he said.

The judge noted that EFCC’s late filing of its counter-affidavit
necessitated the adjournment.

Justice Kuewumi adjourned until December 12 for hearing of
pending applications.

There was a mild drama at the Federal High Court in Lagos
yesterday as two lawyers engaged in an argument over who to
represent four firms that pleaded guilty to laundering $15.5million
allegedly belonging to Patience Jonathan.

The companies through their representatives pleaded guilty last
September 15 and were convicted for laundering the money when they
were arraigned in a criminal charge before Justice Babs
Kuewumi.

They admitted laundering the money allegedly belonging to wife
of former President Goodluck Jonathan, Dame Patience.

But the law firm of Mike Ozekhome Chambers filed an application
on May 8 on the companies’ behalf seeking to set aside the guilty
plea.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission ( EFCC ) has filed
a counter affidavit opposing the application.

The former first lady is also praying the court to unfreeze the
accounts in a separate suit.

The companies are: Pluto Property and Investment Company Ltd
(represented by Friday Davis), Seagate Property Development and
Investment Company Ltd (represented by Agbor Baro), Trans Ocean
Property and Investment Company Ltd (represented by Dioghowori
Frederick) and Avalon Global Property Development Ltd (represented
by Taiwo Ebenezer).

EFCC arraigned them with a former Special Adviser on Domestic
Affairs to President Jonathan, Waripamo Dudafa, a lawyer, Amajuoyi
Briggs and a banker, Adedamola Bolodeoku.

Dudafa, Briggs and Bolodeoku pleaded not guilty to the 17-count
charge.

Beside the application filed by Ozekhome Chambers, another
motion to set aside the guilty plea was filed by Briggs, who was
the companies’ secretary, through his lawyer Ige Asemudara.

Yesterday, Chima Onuigbo, who stood in for Chief Mike Ozekhome
(SAN), said he was served with the prosecution’s counter affidavit
on Tuesday.

He sought an adjournment to enable the companies respond.

Another lawyer, Luke Aghanenu, also appeared for the
companies.

He claimed he was engaged by the companies’ representatives as
their authentic counsel.

According to him, he is the one who ought to speak on the
companies’ behalf, not Onuigbo.

But, Onuigbo said Mike Ozekhome Chambers was engaged by Briggs
to represent the companies.

He said Ozekhome had been appearing for the companies, saying he
was surprised by the new counsel’s appearance.

He described Aghanenu as an “interloper”, saying he should have
filed a proper application.

Resolving the issue after a long argument, Justice Kuewumi asked
Aghanenu to file a formal notice of appearance as the companies’
representatives.

Asemudara said he was also served with EFCC’s counter affidavit
on Tuesday.

Dudafa’s lawyer Gbenga Oyewole (SAN) said he was not served.

“As long as we’re involved in this proceedings we are entitled
to be served,” he said.

EFCC’s lawyer Rotimi Oyedepo said since the application was
challenging the validity of companies’ plea, it could be heard and
judgment delivered at the end of the trial.

This, he said, would be in line with Section 396 (2) of the
Administration of Criminal Justice Law of 2015.

“I apply that the trial should continue,” he said.

But, Asemudara said his client was challenging the guilty plea
and not the charge, so it should be taken first and ruling
delivered before further proceedings.

He said Oyedepo’s submission was misconceived, adding the case
of the second defendant was “intricately connected” with the fourth
to seventh defendants’ (the companies).

He accused the prosecution of delaying the case, saying previous
adjournments were at its instance.

Urging the court to hear the application and deliver judgment,
he added: “We don’t want our client to fear they were not given
fair hearing.”

Ruling, Justice Babs Kuewumi held that the application would be
heard and determined before the prosecution witness continues with
his evidence.

“Section 396 (2) which says the delivery of the ruling shall be
considered at the point of judgment does not apply to this type of
application,” he said.

The judge noted that EFCC’s late filing of its counter-affidavit
necessitated the adjournment.

Justice Kuewumi adjourned until December 12 for hearing of
pending applications.