Thursday, 25th April 2024
To guardian.ng
Search

Judge threatens EFCC counsel with sanction for ‘misconduct’

By Bertram Nwannekanma
29 July 2016   |   2:27 am
Justice Oluwatoyin Ipaye of a Lagos High Court, Ikeja yesterday berated a lawyer attached to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) ...

EFCC-Nigeria

Justice Oluwatoyin Ipaye of a Lagos High Court, Ikeja yesterday berated a lawyer attached to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Mr. Babatunde Sonaiki, for what she described as “gross professional misconduct”.

The judge also threatened to institute a disciplinary action against the counsel before the appropriate authorities.

The outburst arose during the hearing of a criminal charge filed by the anti-graft agency against a Lagos businesswoman, Mrs. Moji Yakubu, her firm, Monan Trading Company and nine persons over an alleged N800 million land theft.

EFCC had alleged that Yakubu and her co-defendants conspired to steal about 10 hectares of land located at Sangotedo area of the state.

At their formal arraignment in February, the judge had raised the issue on whether land can be stolen and asked the EFCC counsel to address her on the matter.

While the matter was slated for ruling, the lawyer approached another judge, Justice Aishat Opensanwo and obtained a forfeiture order to temporarily seal an ongoing project by Yakubu’s company on the land in dispute.

But when the matter came up yesterday, Justice Ipaye informed the parties that the ruling was not yet ready and was about adjourning when counsel to the defendant, Mr. Yemi Adeshina, drew her attention to the forfeiture order.

When questioned by the judge, Sonaiki responded in the affirmative.

At that point, Justice Ipaye became furious and lambasted the EFCC lawyer for the action against the background that the matter was still pending before her court.

She noted that the anti-graft agency appears to be taking the law into its hand by such ‘window shopping’

The judge subsequently adjourned the matter till September 14 for ruling on the defendant’s application to set aside the forfeiture order and the ‘stolen’ charge.

0 Comments