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.
No comments:
Post a Comment