Whether Efcc got the evidence before or after prosecution, the real issue is that there was communication between Ricky Tufiakwa and justice Yinusa.

Lawyers are Liers even when the evidence is crystal clear they will use logic to change the subvert justice.

When you fight corruption it fights back with full force.

But Mr. Tarfa’s lawyer countered the allegations against his client, saying the EFCC had no case because it allegedly obtained some of its evidence by deceit.

“The defendant’s phones were retrieved by deceit by the operatives of the EFCC; they told Tarfa’s driver that his boss was requesting for his phones and when he brought the phones, they were seized,” Mr. Owonikoko said.

Method of obtaining evidence s as important as the evidence itself and if the case relies on this evidence alone it just might be case closed due to incompetence.

hatchy:
Whether Efcc got the evidence before or after prosecution, the real issue is that there was communication between Ricky Tufiakwa and justice Yinusa.

in the eyes of man he might be guilty but the wheels of law could set him free.

From what i have read,the efcc got the evidence lawfully from the telecoms firm and also from the phone of the driver to tarfa through common sense.there is no other way to have gotten it.how can one say that you must go and ask the permission of tarfa before assessing his call log an how would he possibly give you when he knows the implication? After you get a damning evidence against an accused,you should now go and show it to the defence lawyer before presenting it in court,who does that? How would you win corrupt cases with such absurd and foolish legalities? Why do these technicalities surface when the rich are tried and not during the trial of the poor? What is good for the poor,is also good for the rich.i can see tarfa at kirikiri.shikena.up apc

From what i have read,the efcc got the evidence lawfully from the telecoms firm and also from the phone of the driver to tarfa through common sense.there is no other way they would have gotten it.how can one say that you must go and ask the permission of tarfa before assessing his call log an how would he possibly give you when he knows the implication? After you get a damning evidence against an accused,you should now go and show it to the defence lawyer before presenting it in court,who does that? How would you win corrupt cases with such absurd and foolish legalities? Why do these technicalities surface when the rich are tried and not during the trial of the poor? What is good for the poor,is also good for the rich.i can see tarfa at kirikiri.shikena.up apc

From what i have read,the efcc got the evidence lawfully from the telecoms firm and also from the phone of the driver to tarfa through common sense.there is no other way they would have gotten it.how can one say that you must go and ask the permission of tarfa before assessing his call log an how would he possibly give you when he knows the implication? After you get a damning evidence against an accused,you should now go and show it to the defence lawyer before presenting it in court,who does that? How would you win corrupt cases with such absurd and foolish legalities? Why do these technicalities surface when the rich are tried and not during the trial of the poor? What is good for the poor,is also good for the rich.i can see tarfa at kirikiri.up apc.

majekdom2:
This does not make any sense. Can EFCC release all the call logs of politicians... Then we will know they are fighting corruption.

LOL wailers and defender of corruption are here..