Naval Officers Beat Up A Lady And Stripped Her - Watch Video

Arogundade denies ordering assault on Uzoma

Written by INNOCENT ANABA
Thursday, 19 March 2009

REAR-ADMIRAL Harry Arogundade yesterday told a Lagos High Court handling the suit filed by Miss Uzoma Okere and Mr. Abdulahi Abdulazeez who were allegedly assaulted by six naval ratings, that he did not order the men to beat or harass the applicants. He added that Uzoma's father apologised to him when he heard about the matter.

Arogundade, in one of the six counter-affidavits by one Nureni Akinyemi, a litigation clerk in Bolaji Ayorinde Chambers, the defence counsel in the matter, averred: “I did not order, encourage, direct or instruct the second respondent to beat, hit, harass, torture, humiliate and or traumatise the applicants. It is untrue for the applicants to say that they lost several valuables or sustained injuries arising from the incidence.”

Uzoma and Abdulazeez are demanding N100 million as damages against Arogundade, unknown Naval ratings and the Nigerian Navy.

Arogundade averred further in the affidavit that during his discussion with Uzoma’s father, he realised that Colonel Okere was his senior at the Military School, Zaria. He then related to Col. Okere what the daughter had just told him. Okere profusely apologised to him and also begged him to tell his men to release her.”

He said he was in his vehicle reading newspapers hence did not witness the alleged beating and harassment of the applicants and that when Uzoma came to his office to lodge a complaint, he did everything to calm her down.

Arogundade stated that he did not at any time order or encouraged the Naval rating to either beat or torture the applicants and that it was not true that the applicants lost several valuables or sustain injuries as a result of the incident.

Counsel to the 1st and 3rd respondents, Chief Bolaji Ayorinde (SAN), had earlier told the court that it would be very clear from the counter affidavits that there are conflictions in the facts presented before the court and that the suit ought not to have been filed under fundamental human rights procedures.

Ayorinde’s prayed the court to order for oral evidence in the proceedings, but was turned down by Justice Opeyemi Oke, who said it was not yet time to make such order.

Counsel to the respondents also told the court that he was not served with a copy of the video clips attached as exhibit to the originating summons.

But Omotola Rotimi, Director of the Office of Public Defender (OPD) told the court that she needed time to study the respondent’s counter affidavits.

On the issue of video clips marked as exhibit, Omotola explained that copies have been made for the respondents as well as for the court.

At this stage, Justice Opeyemi Oke urged both parties to file all their processes and serve same before the next adjourned date and subsequently adjourned the matter till April 27 for hearing of the originating summons.

Vanguard

 

REBRANDING THE GAINT OF AFRICA IN THE 21 CENTURY

Naval Ratings: Court to Rule May 20
By Davidson Iriekpen, 05.07.2009

Justice Opeyemi Oke of the Lagos High Court, will on May 20, 2009, rule on an application filed by Rear Admiral Harry Arogundade, and some unidentified Naval ratings, seeking leave of the court to admit oral evidence in a suit instituted by Uzoma Okere and her friend, Abdulahi Abdulazeez.
Okere and Abdulazeez were both victims of Naval Ratings attached to Arogundade, who beat them up and stripped Okere naked, for "blocking his way on the road."
At the resumed hearing of the N100 million suit yesterday, counsel to the Respondents, Chief Bolaji Ayorinde, SAN, urged the court to grant them leave to cross-examine the applicants, in view of  allegations made against them.
Moving the application dated April 24, 2009, Ayorinde said in view of the conflicting affidavits sworn to by  applicants and  respondents, the only way out for the court to resolve the issue was for the applicants to enter the witness box and be cross-examined.
Ayorinde  urged the court to grant the application, adding that the grievous allegations were made against the respondents, which ought to be resolved once and for all.
Opposing the application, Lagos State Solicitor General, Mr Lawal Pedro, SAN, admitted that it was within the discretion of court to either grant the application or not, adding that the court must take into consideration the facts placed before it.

This Day

Uzoma: Court rules on oral evidence admissibility May 20
Written by Innocent Anaba

A Lagos judge, Justice Opeyemi Oke, will on May 20, rule on an application by Rear-Admiral Harry Arogundade and some unidentified Naval ratings seeking leave of the court to admit oral evidence in a suit by Miss Uzoma Okere and her friend, Abdulahi Abdulazeez, who were allegedly brutalised by the ratings attached to Arogundade last year. At the resumed hearing of the N100 million suit, counsel to the respondents, Chief Bolaji Ayorinde (SAN), prayed  the court to grant leave to the respondents to cross-examine the applicants (Uzoma Okere and Abdulahi Abdulazeez) in view of the allegations made against them (respondents).
Ayorinde argued that in view of the conflicting affidavits sworn to by the applicants and the respondents, the only way out for the court to resolve the issue was for the applicants to enter the witness box and be cross-examined.
He urged the court to grant the application, contending that grievous allegations were made against the respondents, which ought to be resolved once and for all.
He argued that the best for the court to get to the truth of what actually transpired was through oral evidence.
Ayorinde contending that the video evidence tendered by the applicants did not show what transpired before and after the incident complained of and that there was no police report to back up the allegation levelled at his clients.
Opposing the application, the Solicitor-General of Lagos State, Mr. Lawal Pedro (SAN), admitted that it was within the discretion of court to either grant the application or not,  but that the court must take into consideration the facts placed before it.
He argued that the court could refuse the application when there is documentary evidence before it or on a point of law.
According to him, the recorded documentary evidence of the event was sufficient enough to resolve any conflicting issue that arose in the matter.
He further argued that the nature of the suit brought under the Fundamental Human Rights Procedure does not give room for oral evidence to be taken.
The Lagos State Ministry of Justice, Office of Public Defender, Lagos brought the suit on behalf of the applicants, who were allegedly brutalised by armed naval ratings attached to Admiral Arogundade last year.

Vanguard

Four Years after, Army to Pay SAN N100m for Assault
By Davidson Iriekpen, 05.21.2009

Before Ms Uzoma Okere was brutalised by Naval ratings, there was a case Nigerians never knew of – that of a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Chief Mike Igbokwe (SAN), who was battered along the Lagos-Ibadan Expressway four years ago by two soldiers.
Juistice was served late but warm yesterday by a Federal High Court in Lagos which awarded Igbokwe N100 million as general and aggravated damages.
In his judgment, presiding judge, Justice Tijani Abubakar, described the soldiers’ action as “brazen recklessness” which must be condemned.
Justice Abubakar also said that the actions of the soldiers were totally “wild, barbaric and uncivilized” and must not be allowed in any decent society.
The judge chided the Army authorities for its indifference even after the incident was reported to the Chief of Army Staff.
He ordered that the defendants offer public apology to the plaintiffs which must be published in two national newspapers in the country.
He said: "Having reviewed the evidence tendered before this court, I submit that action of the 4th defendant was totally wild, barbaric and uncivilised such that it must not be allowed in any decent society. Above all, his masters who have the responsibility to condemn such actions appear to be indifferent. Such brazen recklessness must be condemned. The action of the 4th defendant and his colleague to wit; assaulting and battering the plaintiffs on the 23 of December 2005, is unlawful and unconstitutional.
"I award the sum of N100 million to the plaintiffs against the defendants as general and aggravated damages arising from the unlawful and degrading acts of the 4th defendant and his colleague. I order that the defendants offer public apology to the plaintiffs to be published in two widely-circulated newspapers in Nigeria."
Igbokwe and one Joseph Ito, a business man, had dragged the Attorney-General of the Federation, Chief of Army Staff, the Nigerian Army and one Sgt Samuel Udagbe before the court for the infringement of his rights to human dignity.
The plaintiffs, in their statement of claim, said they were travelling to Ijebu-Ode  on December 23, 2005  when between Kilometre 55 and 56 on the Lagos-Ibadan Expres-sway, Igbokwe overtook an Army Landover which was on the left hand side of the road to avoid a vehicle that was in his front which was slowing down.
The senior advocate stated that shortly after overtaking the Army vehicle, it suddenly hit the rear bumper of his Mercedes Benz E240 car, adding that as a result, he was shocked and frightened and thereafter made effort to park and check the extent of damage.
He said while he was making efforts to park, he noticed that the Landrover was moving menacingly towards his car and could further hit him but he accelerated his car to avoid being rammed into.
Igbokwe said 200 metres after, he ran into a heavy traffic-jam occasioned by the repairs on the road, noting that while slowing down, the Landrover blocked his car and to his surprise and consternation, the occupiers alighted armed with cable whip and gun menacingly towards him.
According to him, even though he quickly identified himself as a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, the soldiers angrily demanded his keys and before he could ask why, they descended on him with slaps and whips, thereby inflicting serious injuries on him and destroying his eyeglasses in the process.
He said he suffered humiliation and degradation as he was being beaten up without justification in the full glare of several onlookers.
Reacting to the judgment, Igbokwe said why he decided to seek redress was for the soldiers to know that they must learn to subject themselves to democratic norms.
He said for the soldiers to have horse and cable whips with them showed that they had been using them on other innocent Nigerians who had not been challenging them.
Ironically, the Army failed to enter an appearance in the case – an attitude that many believed must have infuriated the judge.

This Day

Okere: Arogundade Appeals Court Ruling
By Davidson Iriekpen, 05.27.2009

Rear Admiral Arogundade and the Nigerian Navy have filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal in Lagos, challenging the ruling of a  Lagos High Court which dismissed their applications.
Justice Opeyemi Oke had last week dismissed Arogundade's application, seeking leave of the court to admit oral evidence in a suit instituted by Uzoma Okere and her friend, Abdulahi Abdulazeez.
The judge had said that there were documentary evidences before the court that could be used to adjudicate on the matter hence there was no need for oral evidence.
However, at the resumed hearing of the suit yesterday, counsel to the respondents, Lawrence Imolode from Bolaji Ayorinde’s chambers informed the court that an appeal had been filed against the ruling of the court. He also disclosed that the claimant counsel had been served with the Motion on Notice.
Specifically, the said motion is seeking the leave of the court to appeal against the ruling on the court delivered on May 20, 2009.
The motion is also praying the court for an order for stay of proceedings pending the determination of the appeal.
However, counsel to Okere urged the court grant a short adjournment to enable her respond by filling counter affidavit. The matter  was later adjourned till June 22 for hearing of the Motion on Notice filed by the respondents.
The court had in its ruling held that the need for oral evidence could only arose when the documentary evidence before the court are not sufficient to enable the court arrive at a just conclusion.
Justice Oke in her ruling also held that the application for oral evidence was unnecessary and to allow it would be to put the cart before the horse.
She maintained that for the application to succeed the conflicts in question must be tangible and not intangible; it must be material and not immaterial, adding that when the conflict is cosmetic and inarticulate or farce, a court of law will not order or call for oral evidence.
Uzoma Okere and Abdulahi Abdulazeez  are  asking the court to declare the acts of the respondents in torturing, stripping her naked, ruthless brutalizing and unlawful arrest and detention without any justification as unlawful and unconstitutional.
They want the court to compel the respondents to issue unreserved apologies to them for the violation of their fundamental human rights in at least four print and electronic media and pay the sum of N100 million as compensation.
The plaintiffs are also seeking for an order of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents and their agents from horsewhipping motorists and putting them in apprehension through reckless driving in siren-blaring convoy.
Okere and Abdulazeez further prayed the court to declare that the acts of intimidation, violence and reckless driving by the respondents on the public roads under the pretext of being military officers, violate her and other road users' rights to movement and dignity of human person.

This Day