Breaking NewsRecent News

EFCC Insists Tarfa Wants to Mislead Court with New Affidavit. Tarfa,: No, New Evidence Was not Available to Us Before Now


There was a mild drama at a Lagos High Court, Monday when Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on Monday opposed a move by Rickey Tarfa (SAN), to reopen hearing on his N2.5billion fundamental rights suit and to adduce further evidence.
The court was suppose to deliver judgment Monday, when Tarfa adduced additional affidavit.
Tarfa’s lawyer, Bolaji Ayorinde (SAN), who led five other SANs, including Oluyele Delano, Abiodun Owonikoko, Dr. Muiz Banire, Sylva Ogwemoh and Uche Obi, as well as tens of other lawyers, urged the court to allow the use of further and better affidavit against in which Tarfa had admitted Justice Yunisa the said money for which he is been tried.
Tarfa said the new evidence was not available at the time his case was argued.
The Senior Advocate said the money contributed by some lawyers for Justice Yunusa when he was bereaved was different from the one EFCC alleged Tarfa paid into the Judge’s account.
Ayorinde said after admitting that a donation was made to the Judge, Tarfa realised that N225,000 was actually given to a lawyer in his firm.
“This is a court of law, equity and justice. If, this morning, new information comes to us, we have to put it forward. The account they attribute to Justice Yunusa does not belong to him,” he said.
Ayorinde said Tarfa was not attempting to arrest the judgment.
“The evidence was not available as at the time we took the arguments. It behooves your Lordship to consider it,” he added.
Ayorinde said the new affidavit was deposed to by a lawyer, Mohammed Awwal Yunusa, who swore that the bank account said to be owned by Justice Mohammed Yunusa, through which Tarfa allegedly paid the judge N225,000, belongs to the lawyer and not the judge.
But EFCC’s lawyer, Wahab Shittu vehemently opposed the application, saying it was an after-thought designed to confuse issues and mislead the court.
He described Tarfa’s claim as “blatant falsehood,” adding that “the facts cannot be twisted or misrepresented in any way whatsoever.”
Justice Mohammed Idris adjourned until Monday for judgment.

Madalla Christmas Day Bomber, 3 Other Suspected Boko Haram Arrested

Previous article

Court Renews Order Forbidding NERC from Increasing Electricity Tariff

Next article

You may also like


Leave a Reply