Senior Advocate Rickey Tarfa Opens Up On The Cash He Sent To A Judge's Account.
Our Senior Advocate said they love the Judge and made donation to his father-in-law's burial...
Embattled lawyer, Rickey Tarfa (SAN), has countered allegation by the EFCC that he gave a bribe of N225,000 to Justice Mohammed Yunusa of the Federal High Court.
Mr. Tarfa made fresh claims in a further affidavit filed on Friday before the court and deposed to by the head of his chambers, John Odubela.
The EFCC had, in a counter-affidavit to a N2.5bn fundamental rights enforcement suit filed against it by Tarfa, alleged that the senior advocate bribed Justice Yunusa with N225,000 on January 7, 2014.
But Odubela, in reply to the allegation, said though it was true
Embattled lawyer, Rickey Tarfa (SAN), has countered allegation by the EFCC that he gave a bribe of N225,000 to Justice Mohammed Yunusa of the Federal High Court.
Mr. Tarfa made fresh claims in a further affidavit filed on Friday before the court and deposed to by the head of his chambers, John Odubela.
The EFCC had, in a counter-affidavit to a N2.5bn fundamental rights enforcement suit filed against it by Tarfa, alleged that the senior advocate bribed Justice Yunusa with N225,000 on January 7, 2014.
But Odubela, in reply to the allegation, said though it was true
that Tarfa forwarded N225,000 to Justice Yunusa as EFCC had said, the money was not a bribe but a donation made by some friends of Justice Yunusa towards the funeral rites of his father-in-law, Alhaji Audi Damasa.
Tarfa, through Odubela, also described as untrue the claim by the EFCC that Justice Yunusa acknowledged the receipt of the alleged bribe by a text message which read, “Thank you, my senior advocate.”
He said, “Contrary to paragraphs 31, 54 and 55 of Moses Awolusi’s (EFCC operative) counter-affidavit, the access to the applicant’s firm’s Access Bank account details was done by the respondents after the arrest and detention of the applicant on 5th February, 2016 without consent and authority of the applicant.
“That the applicant did not on 7th January, 2014 bribe Honourable Justice M.N. Yunusa with the sum of N225,000 or any other sum at all.
“That it was common knowledge in the legal circles that Honourable Justice M.N. Yunusa lost his father-in-law, Alhaji Audi Garba Damasa on the 28th December, 2013 in Maiduguri and travelled there to attend to the funeral rites.
“That the applicant and some friends of Honourable Justice M.N. Yunusa made some donations towards the said funeral rites and to commiserate with the judge since they could not physically go and commiserate with him in Maiduguri, where he was and stayed for a while.
“That the contributed monies amounted to N225,000, which sum was given to the applicant with the responsibility to get same across to the bereaved judge.
“That the applicant consequently made arrangements to forward the sum N225,000.
“That I know as a fact that it is common in Nigeria for friends and well-wishers to contribute gifts in cash and kind to people who are celebrating or bereaved.”
While arguing Tarfa’s suit on Friday, his counsel, Ayorinde, maintained that his rights were violated and as such he deserved his claims of N2.5bn against EFCC.
The EFCC, through its lawyer, Mr. Wahab Shittu, countered the claim and urged the court to dismiss Tarfa suit with a “substantive punitive cost for lacking in merit.”
Opposing Tarfa’s suit on Friday, Shittu said Tarfa’s arrest was not unlawful because the EFCC arrested him on reasonable suspicion and had already charged him to court, where he had already been arraigned with trial fixed for March.
“Exemplary and aggravated damages can only be granted if it is established that the action of the respondents is high-handed; the applicant has to also show that the action of the respondent is wanton. But in this case, it is clear that the respondents were carrying out their statutory duty,” shittu argued.
After listening to both parties, Justice Idris fixed February 29 for judgment.
Tarfa, through Odubela, also described as untrue the claim by the EFCC that Justice Yunusa acknowledged the receipt of the alleged bribe by a text message which read, “Thank you, my senior advocate.”
He said, “Contrary to paragraphs 31, 54 and 55 of Moses Awolusi’s (EFCC operative) counter-affidavit, the access to the applicant’s firm’s Access Bank account details was done by the respondents after the arrest and detention of the applicant on 5th February, 2016 without consent and authority of the applicant.
“That the applicant did not on 7th January, 2014 bribe Honourable Justice M.N. Yunusa with the sum of N225,000 or any other sum at all.
“That it was common knowledge in the legal circles that Honourable Justice M.N. Yunusa lost his father-in-law, Alhaji Audi Garba Damasa on the 28th December, 2013 in Maiduguri and travelled there to attend to the funeral rites.
“That the applicant and some friends of Honourable Justice M.N. Yunusa made some donations towards the said funeral rites and to commiserate with the judge since they could not physically go and commiserate with him in Maiduguri, where he was and stayed for a while.
“That the contributed monies amounted to N225,000, which sum was given to the applicant with the responsibility to get same across to the bereaved judge.
“That the applicant consequently made arrangements to forward the sum N225,000.
“That I know as a fact that it is common in Nigeria for friends and well-wishers to contribute gifts in cash and kind to people who are celebrating or bereaved.”
While arguing Tarfa’s suit on Friday, his counsel, Ayorinde, maintained that his rights were violated and as such he deserved his claims of N2.5bn against EFCC.
The EFCC, through its lawyer, Mr. Wahab Shittu, countered the claim and urged the court to dismiss Tarfa suit with a “substantive punitive cost for lacking in merit.”
Opposing Tarfa’s suit on Friday, Shittu said Tarfa’s arrest was not unlawful because the EFCC arrested him on reasonable suspicion and had already charged him to court, where he had already been arraigned with trial fixed for March.
“Exemplary and aggravated damages can only be granted if it is established that the action of the respondents is high-handed; the applicant has to also show that the action of the respondent is wanton. But in this case, it is clear that the respondents were carrying out their statutory duty,” shittu argued.
After listening to both parties, Justice Idris fixed February 29 for judgment.
No comments:
Post a Comment