Rickey Tarfa floors EFCC, court accepts new evidence

Rickey Tarfa floors EFCC, court accepts new evidence

Wednesday, March 2, 2016 5:49 pm

Rickey Tarfa: floors EFCC on fresh evidence

Rickey Tarfa: floors EFCC on fresh evidence

Akin Kuponiyi

A Nigerian federal high court,sitting in Lagos today ruled that the embattled senior advocate of Nigeria, Mr. Rickey Tarfa could file a further and better affidavit to prove that the controversial N225,000 alleged bribe was not paid into a judge’s account but the account of a former employee of his law firm.

Tarfa had after his detention by the operatives of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC)  filed a N2. 5 billion enforcement rights suit against the Anti-graft agency and it’s Chairman, Ibrahim Magu. 
The EFCC in its own counter affidavit alleged that the senior lawyer paid the said amount into the account of Justice Mohammed Yunusa of the Federal High Court, Lagos. 

After hearing the arguments of both parties, Justice Ibrahim Idris adjourned for ruling. 
However before the judgment could be delivered, a former staff of Rickey Tarfa and Co, Mr. Muhammed Awwal Yunusa in a sworn affidavit stated that he was the recipient of the money and that it was paid into his Access Bank account, contrary to earlier depositions that the money was paid into the judge’s account to assist him to bury his fatther-in-law. 
This new evidence halted the delivery of the judgment more so as Tarfa through his lead counsel, Chief Bolaji Ayorinde (SAN) asked the court to allow him bring the new evidence in his record. 
But, EFCC lawyer , Mr. Wahab Shittu opposed the application to file the new evidence. 

Ruling today on the application, Justice Idris agreed with Tarfa and held that “in the interest of justice, a party should be allowed to bring any evidence or material that would aid his case”. 

Further hearing in the matter continues tomorrow.

*Kuponiyi can be reached at [email protected]

Join The Conversation

One Comment

  • ode says:

    Wise decision by the Judge. This is not about the persecution but the prosecution of the accused person who is presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt. It also limits the leeway for appeal by the accused where he loses. It remains to be seen how the court will view the apparent inconsistency and “makossa” of the accused’s affidavit evidence.

  • What do you think?

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.