Court Vacates Order Freezing Patience Jonathan’s Account

Dasuki’s bail affirmed in amended charges, FG insists on secret trial

Federal High Court in Lagos yesterday vacated its order freezing the account of the former First Lady, Mrs. Patience Jonathan, containing $5,842,316.66 and domiciled with Skye Bank Plc.

The order of the court was sequel to an application filed and argued before the court by her lawyer, Mr. Adedayo Adedipe (SAN) leading seven other lawyers.

Adedipe urged the court to unfreeze the account on the grounds that Mrs. Jonathan was not a party in the suit leading to the order made by the court freezing her account.

Her lawyer, while citing a plethora of authorities, contended that the suit was an abuse of court process, as the court did not have the jurisdiction to make an order against a party that was not a party in a suit filed before the court.

Surprisingly, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), which initiated the suit leading to the order freezing the account, did not file any response to the application filed to discharge the order.

In her ruling, the presiding judge, Justice Mojisola Olatoregun upheld the submission ofAdedipe and discharged the order freezing the account.

Last year, based on an application filed by the EFCC, the court had ordered that Mrs. Jonathan’s account containing the said sum should be frozen on the grounds that the money was suspected to be proceeds of crime.

Also affected by the said order were five companies and one Esther Oba who were said to have a total sum of N7,418,829,290.94.

The order of the court was sequel to an ex-parte order deposed to by Abdulahi Tukur an investigating officer of the EFCC and filed before the court by EFCC prosecutor Rotimi Oyedepo Iseoluwa,

Tukur averred that there was urgent need for the court to direct the managers of the bank accounts contained in the schedule filed with the summons FHC/L/CS/1343/16 to, in the interim, forfeit the money contained therein to prevent further tampering with the accounts.

According to the affidavit by Tukur, Mrs. Jonathan’s money in Skye Bank account number 2110001712 with a balance of $5,842,316.66 was presumably suspected to be proceeds of crime.

But Justice Olatoregun, while granting the order freezing the accounts listed in the attached schedule, had ordered the anti-graft agency to file an undertaking as to damages if it turned out that the order was not to have been made.

Meanwhile, another Federal High Court in Abuja yesterday affirmed the bail granted the former National Security Adviser (NSA), Col. Mohammed Sambo Dasuki (rtd.) in the amended charges of unlawful possession of firearms and money-laundering brought against him by the federal government.

Justice Ahmed Rahmat Mohammed affirmed Dasuki’s bail shortly after taking his plea in the amended seven-count charge.

The judge said that since the prosecution’s counsel Mr. Oladipo Okpeseyi (SAN) did not object to the bail of the ex-NSA, the court had to affirm same and ordered the defendant to continue to enjoy the bail condition granted him in 2015 when he was first arraigned.

Dasuki had in 2015 been admitted to bail by Justice Adeniyi Ademola but the bail order was not obeyed by the federal government, including other bails granted by Justice Peter Affen and Justice Husseini BabaYusuf of the FCT High Court.

The ECOWAS Court too ordered the immediate release Dasuki, describing his detention as illegal and unlawful.

Despite all the court orders, the former NSA has remained in the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS) without any legal justification.

In the amended charges, Dasuki was accused of being in possession of prohibited firearms without the requisite licences in July 2015, contrary to Section 28 of the Firearm Act Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

He was alleged to have been in possession of Trevor rifles at his residence in Abuja.

Besides the firearms, Dasuki was accused of money laundering and was said to have been in possession of $40,000, N5 million and £20,000 in his house in July 2015. The monies were alleged to be the proceeds of an unlawful act, contrary to Section 15(3) of the Money Laundering Prohibition Act, 2011.

The amended charges also indicated that the sum of $150,000 and N37 million, being part of the proceeds of an unlawful act were also said to have been found in the Sokoto residence of former NSA on July 16, 2015.

When the charges were read, Dasuki pleaded not guilty to all of them.

Prosecution counsel thereafter informed the court of his readiness for trial and that he had a motion pending before the court for a secret trial, seeking protection for witnesses billed to testify against the NSA.

Opeseyi informed the court that since the amended charges bore the same number with the previous charges, the court should exercise its order on the bail earlier granted the defendant by allowing him to continue to enjoy the bail.

Dasuki’s counsel, Mr. Ahmed Raji (SAN) agreed that the previous bail granted Dasuki be allowed to continue since there was no objection from the prosecution.

Raji however opposed the motion filed since June 3, 2016 seeking protection for prosecution witnesses on the grounds that the motion was predicated on the old charge.

The senior counsel informed the court that the prosecution had in January 23, 2017, filed an application on the same issue and wondered why the prosecution “chose to dance backwards to the motion of 2016” instead of going ahead with that of 2017.

He urged the court to allow him time to look for the counter-affidavit filed by his client against the 2016 motion so as to enable him respond appropriately as required by law.

Raji appealed to the court that the trial should not be decided immediately by the court until the request for a secret trial in the matter had been resolved.

Justice Mohammed, while affirming the bail granted Dasuki in 2015, adjourned the matter till May 11 for the motion on the secret trial to be determined.

Justice Ademola in 2015 dismissed the application for the secret trial of the former NSA on the grounds that the prosecution had already filed the names and addresses of all the witnesses in respect of the trial and made same available to the general public.