Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,163,424 members, 7,853,832 topics. Date: Saturday, 08 June 2024 at 05:41 AM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Politics / Uk Court Judgment On Buruji Kashamu, 2003 (1258 Views)
James Ibori Hangs Out With Friends In London After Being Cleared UK Court. PICS / Supreme Court Delivers Judgment On Wike’s Appeal Today / NDLEA Makes U-turn On Buruji Kasamu: Will Vacate Residence (2) (3) (4)
Uk Court Judgment On Buruji Kashamu, 2003 by comos: 11:56am On May 27, 2015 |
I reached these conclusions on the 28th February 2002 and since that date this court has sat on a number of occasions to hear evidence on behalf of the defence from witnesses who have attended to give depositions. The American Government has also submitted evidence in rebuttal. I have received evidence on behalf of the Defence from a number of witnesses, which I now summarize. Mr Morohundiya is an officer of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency in Nigeria, in the course of his evidence he acknowledges that the defendant was an informant of the drug agency and that he was aware of the existence of the defendant’s brother, a man named Alhaji Adewale Adeshina Kashamu. “Alhaji” was a man who was wanted by the agency for drugs offences. He told me that the two brothers has a striking resemblance to each other. He also told me about the policing of the border between Nigeria and Benin. Maltre Claudine Mougni also gave evidence to me about the enforcement of border controls. Reuben Nwako gave evidence to me as the former head of the Directorate of Investigations of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency. He confirmed that the defendant had helped the Agency in providing information as to the fighting of drug crime and that they were also aware of Mr Kashamu’s brother, Adewale Kashamu, who was regarded as a drug dealer. Bagbonu Gaston the officer in charge of the Interpol Office in Benin gave evidence about the defendant’s assistance to the police, and in particular to the information he provided in relation to his brother and those associated with him. He referred the documents dated 1993 and 1994. If those documents are valid documents there is clear evidence of the assistance the defendant was providing. Mr Coleman on behalf of the United States Government had to challenge those documents, making the allegation that they had been fabricated and only recently inserted into the archives of Interpol in Benin. I could find no evidence to support that contention. I accept the evidence of Mr Gaston. That evidence, coupled with the earlier evidence satisfies me that the defendant was providing the Police and Drug Enforcement Agencies with information about his brother and about the co-conspirators whose evidence of identification forms the basis of the prosecution’s case. To counter the evidence that the defendant was informing on his brother and co-conspirators and to counter the suggestion that he has been mistaken for his brother, the United States Government have tendered in evidence three letters from the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency dated 21st March 2001, 15th November 2001 and 8th May 2002. In these the Agency vehemently denies that the defendant was an informant and maintains that Alhaji Adewale Adeshina Kashamu had died before the defendant was wanted by the drug agency in 1994. It is suggested that the defendant’s brother died whilst attempting to escape from Customs in 1989. However, in the letter of the 8th May 2002 the Agency acknowledges that Mr Adewale Kashamu had been properly issued with a Nigerian passport in 1990 and that there was no evidence that he died in the custody of Nigerian Customs. Other letters from the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency acknowledge that Mr Kashamu was an informant and that Alhaji Adewale Adeshina Kashamu was the subject of a drug investigation which resulted in the closure of his motor car shop in Lagos. The Government seek to maintain that the defendant was not an informant and that his brother died in 1989. The suggestion has been put, but denied, that the letters retracting those allegations were either forgeries or were written as a result of pressure from the defendant, probably exerted by the defendant’s lawyer in Lagos. As to the allegation that the letters were forgeries, I have received evidence from handwriting experts. Mrs Maureen Ward Gandy on behalf of the defendant concludes that the letters were “possibly” written by the same writer but in the absence of any further evidence could not say they were “most probably” written by the same writer. Mr Ada John Craske examined the letters on behalf of the American Government and he is unable to come to a conclusive decision. On that inconclusive evidence from the handwriting experts, I cannot be satisfied that the two “retraction” letters are forgeries. I therefore have to look to the oral evidence that I have received from the officers of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency. I have concluded that the documents are authentic. I then have to consider whether they are documents containing statements of truth or whether pressure has been exerted upon the officials which would cause them to write untruthful letters. I have heard evidence from Mr Rafael Oluyede, who is Mr Kashamu’s lawyer in Lagos. I have also read transcripts of interviews (currently recorded) that he carried out in Lagos with officers of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency. I am satisfied that Mr Oluyedo put his client’s case forcefully and indicated that High Court proceedings were being contemplated. This may have provided a motive for writing factually inaccurate letters. The counter-argument advanced by the Defence is that similar but different pressure was being exerted through the United States Government’s agent in Lagos on the Agency to provide incriminating letters. I have been unable to resolve whether undue pressure was exerted either by the United States Government or by the defendant. I therefore looked at the provenance of the letters and in particular to the letters produced by the Agency, allegedly being letters sent in 1993 and 1994 by the defendant. In respect of those documents I accept the evidence of the various witnesses who have given evidence from the Enforcement Agency and conclude that the letters were written by the defendant in 1993 and 1994. As a result of the evidence that the Defence has placed before me and the evidence which the Government has tendered in rebuttal, I find the following facts: 1)That the defendant has a brother, Alhaji Adewale Adeshina Kashamu who bears a striking resemblance to that of his brother, the defendant before me. 2)That Burunji Kashamu was an informal to Interpol in Benin, Interpol in Toga and to the National Law Drug Enforcement Agency in Nigeria. 3)He has provided that information since 1993 and has informed upon his brother Alhaji Adewale Adeshima Kashamu and the co-conspirators Fillmore and the Wolters sisters. 4)I am satisfied that Alhaji Adewale Adeshina Kashamu was not killed in 1989 by Customs and I am satisfied that a bank account verified by Alhaji’s address, passport and telephone numbers was being operated as late as October 2000. 5)I am satisfied that the defendant had a proprietary interest in a company known as Kasmal Company Limited which had a Daewoo car dealership but I am satisfied from the documentary evidence that that company was jointly directed by the defendant and his brother. 6)I have been provided with the dates on which the defendant was not in the country of Benin but I found the evidence the relating to the enforcement of the border between Nigeria and Benin unclear and misleading. I have therefore attached little or no weight in it and cannot reach any conclusions as to whether the meetings outlined by the Wolters sisters could or could not have taken place. In the light of these findings of fact, I have applied the following tests. In relation to the abuse of process argument, the Defence have to satisfy me that it is more likely than not that the United State Government, through its agents, have acted in bad faith, in this case knowingly bringing and continuing these proceedings when the Government knew that the evidence it was putting forward was untrue and misleading. I have found as a fact that certain of the assertions made by the Government are untrue. One significant example is in the evidence now before me is the claim that Buruji Kashamu was not an informant. If the Government was aware of that fact and persisted in putting forward such untruthful evidence, it would plainly be evidence to support an abuse of process submission. However, the evidence emanates from an Agency in Nigeria over which the American Government has no authority. It is then passed to America and then to this country and I cannot be satisfied that it was probable that the Government knew that evidence was false. Although I, and no doubt any trial judge, will be concerned at the lack of care by the United State prosecuting authorities in examining and testing this evidence, I am unable to conclude that the Defence have demonstrated that this was probably done with the knowledge of the United States Government. In those circumstances I do not find that there has been an abuse of process. I now turn to consider the submission that there is now no prime facts case. I am applying the test agreed by Mr. Fitz Gerald and Mr. Coleman that all the evidence taken as a whole must be sufficient to say that there is a case to answer. Mr. Coleman points to my original finding that the evidence originally tendered by the Government in those proceedings amounted to a prime fact case when the Prosecution concluded its case. He submits that the evidence I have now heard from the Defense does not undermine the Identification evidence given by Ellen Wolters and Catherine Wolters. Their evidence, he submits, is still unequivocal and the evidence from the Defense merely gives rise to issue on the credibility of their evidence which is essentially a matter for the trial. Ellen Wolters’ evidence is far from precise but she claims to have met the man whom she knows as Alhaji sometime between January 1993 and June 1995. On the basis of that meeting, in November 2000 she identifies a photograph of the defendant as being the individual that she knows as Alhaji. In my judgment the evidence of alleged voice recognition in respect of the tape recording has no probative value whatsoever; indeed there is no evidence of whose voice was recorded. Catherine Wolters claims to have met Alhaji on one occasion in January 1993 and possibly on another occasion in November 1993. She was asked to identify the individual she knows as Alhaji in November 2000, some seven years after she last saw him. For the reasons I gave earlier, I attach no weight to the alleged recognition of a voice on a tape recording. Against that evidence I have to weigh the facts that I have found from the evidence adduced by the Defence. I am satisfied that the defendant has a brother who bears a striking resemblance to him. The brother was not killed in an incident with Customs in 1989 and his name included the name Alhaji. I am satisfied that the defendant’s brother was one of the co-conspirators in the drugs importation which involved Catherine and Ellen Wolters. I am satisfied that the defendant informed both Interpol and the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency of the activities of this group I am mindful of Mr Coleman’s submission that this is a matter of the credibility of the identification witnesses which should essentially remain a matter for a jury. I am however satisfied that the overwhelming evidence here is such that the identification evidence already tenuous , has now been so undermined as to make it incredible and valueless. In those circumstances there is then no prime facie case against the defendant and I propose to discharge him. Tim Workman Designated District Judge 10 January 2003 Cull from Elombah.com |
Re: Uk Court Judgment On Buruji Kashamu, 2003 by drizzydrag(m): 12:17pm On May 27, 2015 |
Dat guy has been under d radar since den... |
Re: Uk Court Judgment On Buruji Kashamu, 2003 by seunmsg(m): 12:19pm On May 27, 2015 |
In relation to the abuse of process argument, the Defence have to satisfy me that it is more likely than not that the United State Government, through its agents, have acted in bad faith, in this case knowingly bringing and continuing these proceedings when the Government knew that the evidence it was putting forward was untrue and misleading. I have found as a fact that certain of the assertions made by the Government are untrue. It is a shame that most Nigerians who are calling for Kashamu's extradition to the US are very ignorant of the case. The bolded part from the UK court judgement says it all. Only deranged Nigerians will clamour for Kashamu to go and stand trial in a country where he will never get a fair trial. The UK is an unbiased party in this matter and the above judgement shows clearly that the Americans case against Kashamu was build on tissue of lies and deceit. |
Re: Uk Court Judgment On Buruji Kashamu, 2003 by PassingShot(m): 12:25pm On May 27, 2015 |
My only question is, why do you think USA want Kashamu behind bar if he's not guilty of the offence? Besides, that he was not found guilty in UK for some flaws made by the prosecuting team does not necessarily mean that Kashamu is not guilty really. |
Re: Uk Court Judgment On Buruji Kashamu, 2003 by Jossyroyal1: 12:26pm On May 27, 2015 |
This Case |
Re: Uk Court Judgment On Buruji Kashamu, 2003 by comos: 12:35pm On May 27, 2015 |
PassingShot:This is just Nigerian Politics for you. Scape-goat are been lead to the altar when the new administration has not started Which country will extradite her own citizen to be prosecuted on a case which has already been judge. |
Re: Uk Court Judgment On Buruji Kashamu, 2003 by seunmsg(m): 12:39pm On May 27, 2015 |
PassingShot: American prosecutors build their career on the amount of convictions that they get. Once you are their target, they go all out to get you convicted whether you are guilty or not. The prosecutors in the UK did not make any mistake. They had a bad case and resulted to hiding key evidence and outright lies. The above judgement should tell you that Kashamu will never get a fair trial in the US. NDLEA should prosecute him in Nigeria if they have any case against him. |
Re: Uk Court Judgment On Buruji Kashamu, 2003 by atlwireles: 12:44pm On May 27, 2015 |
Impressive, this extradition hearing will be interesting to say the least. This already looks like advantage Buruji |
Re: Uk Court Judgment On Buruji Kashamu, 2003 by comos: 2:17pm On May 27, 2015 |
atlwireles:exactly! OBJ, Tinubu and Co are just after this man; forgetting that he is a senator elect. I think it is time his people rise up to his defence. |
Re: Uk Court Judgment On Buruji Kashamu, 2003 by seunmsg(m): 2:54pm On May 27, 2015 |
comos: Most Nigerians are too emotional to look at the facts of the case and see the hiding truth. Most people already found him guilty in their minds without any second taught that he might be innocent of the allegations. Only very few people can really stand up for him as it is now. |
(1) (Reply)
Senator Ben Murray Bruce's Message To Nairalander Youths / Photos: Man Threatens To Kill Himself Today 20th Of July / Biafra Matter Settled Since 1970, ACF Tells Igbo
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 45 |