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.
Hello
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
Please note that opinions expressed in comments are those of the comment writers alone and does not reflect or represent the views of Geraodox Gerry