Cc: Lalasticlala, Seun

Shortly after his renomination as the substantive Chairman of the Anti-graft Agency (EFCC) was rejected by the Nigerian Senate on Tuesday, 15th March, 2017, Mr. Magu Ibrahim Mustapha was served by the Bailiff of the Federal High Court, Abuja, with copies of the Originating Summons filed by an Abuja Lawyer. In the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/159/17, the Lawyer, Barrister Johnmary Chukwukasi Jideobi, is seeking to oust Magu Ibrahim Mustapha, as the Acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.

In the concluding part of his written address, the Plaintiff descended heavily on Magu in these telling words:

"We further submit that the refusal of the 4th Defendant to accept, as unquestionably binding, the decision of the 1st Defendant rejecting his nomination is a grave and violent confrontation to the well-established Constitutional authority of the highest law-making body in Nigeria. The Constitution which established the Senate and empowers it to screen and approve or disapprove the nominations of Mr. President equally by its Section 1 (1) establishes its pre-eminence and pervading bindingness on all authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria."

"By continuing to remain and act as the Acting Chairman of the 3rd Defendant despite his resounding rejection by the 1st Defendant, the 4th Defendant is rumpling the Nigerian Constitution. Has he got the powers to do that? The answer is a loud NO. Persons who are desirous of presiding over the agencies of government established by law cannot afford to be spiteful of the law and where they are found to be riding roughshod on the Rule of Law, a civilized society ought not to entrust them with a position of responsibility otherwise by their impunity and abuse of democratic ethos, an organized society may come to a sad end. The 4th Defendant should be told so in the clearest of language."

In the Originating Summons, the Plaintiff raised one question of law for the determination of the Court to wit:
"Whether having regard to the provision of section 2 (3) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act, 2004, the rejection by the 1st Defendant herein of the appointment of the 4th Defendant herein as the Chairman of the 3rd Defendant has not ended the roles of the 4th Defendant within the 3rd Defendant herein?"

Among the reliefs the Plaintiff is seeking from the Court are;
"A SOLEMN DECLARATION OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT, that under and by virtue of section 2 (3) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Establishment Act 2004, the 4th Defendant, Ibrahim Magu, cannot continue to function in office as Acting Chairman of the 3rd Defendant, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, after the decision of the 1st Defendant, The Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which rejected the nomination of the 4th Defendant as Chairman of the 3rd Defendant."

"A SOLEMN DECLARATION HONOURABLE COURT that all actions taken by the 3rd Defendant, especially charges and information filed in various courts, during the period when the 4th Defendant, Ibrahim Magu, acted in excess of his legal term as Acting Chairman thereof, are illegal, null, void and invalid."

"AN ORDER, forthwith directing the 4th Defendant, Ibrahim Magu, to vacate, relinquish and surrender his office as Acting Chairman of the 3rd Defendant, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission."

The matter has been fixed for hearing on the 5th April, 2017 before the Honourable Justice Quadri of the Federal High Court 10, Abuja.

People that are not qualified to fight corruption want to do it. That is the problem with buhari and his gang members

This lawyer should take it easy on. See grammar :ethos, roughshod, solemn declaration,...
Democracy at work though Magu thinks he alone can head the agency. Self-righteousness. Oyonu. He failed it.

AWON WEYREH PEOPLE WITH DIFFERENT ACTIONS, OPINION AND REACTION. LET'S SEE WHERE THEY PUSH THIS COUNTRY TOO. WE DEY FOR STREET AND WE GO SURVIVE AM. VERY SOON I GO FIND MY WAY ENTER ONE SMALL COUNTRY GO ENJOY PEACE OF MY LIFE.
#IamCSO

I think this is a right step in the right direction. Since it seems the Presidency is not ready to remove Magu - after being rejected twice by the Senate - it is better the court be asked to do so.
Such won't just put an end to this particular issue, it will also serve as precedence for possible future occurrences.

why are u misleading us op i saw shocking n i was worried only to see bunch of signstures. abeg

Lawyers are soon going to realize that English language has evolved past Victorian age and they need to speak like we do on social media or they will soon be in contempt and we might soon take over and put courtrooms on social media.




Lawyer: “When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were able, for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not to go, gone also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with him to the station?”

* Other Lawyer: “Objection. That question should be taken out and shot.”

This is it, let the courts interprete the relevant sections of the constitution and let this matter be put to rest. I hope the court gives accelerated hearing to quickly determine the issues raised.

Lawyer: “Was that the same nose you broke as a child?”
* Witness: “I only have one, you know.”

* Lawyer: “Now, Mrs. Johnson, how was your first marriage terminated?”
* Witness: “By death.”
* Lawyer: “And by whose death was it terminated?”


* Lawyer: “What is your date of birth?”
* Witness: “July 15th.”
* Lawyer: “What year?”
* Witness: “Every year.”


* Lawyer: “What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?”
* Witness: “Gucci sweats and Reeboks.”

* Lawyer: “Can you describe what the person who attacked you looked like?”
* Witness: “No. He was wearing a mask.”
* Lawyer: “What was he wearing under the mask?”
* Witness: “Er…his face.”

* Lawyer: “This myasthenia gravis — does it affect your memory at all?”
* Witness: “Yes.”
* Lawyer: “And in what ways does it affect your memory?”
* Witness: “I forget.”
* Lawyer: “You forget. Can you give us an example of something that you’ve forgotten?”

* Lawyer: “How old is your son, the one living with you?”
* Witness: “Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can’t remember which.”
* Lawyer: “How long has he lived with you?”
* Witness: “Forty-five years.”

* Lawyer: “What was the first thing your husband said to you when he woke that morning?”
* Witness: “He said, ‘Where am I, Cathy?'”
* Lawyer: “And why did that upset you?”
* Witness: “My name is Susan.”

* Lawyer: “Sir, what is your IQ?”
* Witness: “Well, I can see pretty well, I think.”

* Lawyer: “Did you blow your horn or anything?”
* Witness: “After the accident?”
* Lawyer: “Before the accident.”
* Witness: “Sure, I played for ten years. I even went to school for it.”

* Lawyer: “Trooper, when you stopped the defendant, were your red and blue lights flashing?”
* Witness: “Yes.”
* Lawyer: “Did the defendant say anything when she got out of her car?”
* Witness: “Yes, sir.”
* Lawyer: “What did she say?”
* Witness: “‘What disco am I at?'”

* Lawyer: “Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?”
* Witness: “No.”
* Lawyer: “Did you check for blood pressure?”
* Witness: “No.”
* Lawyer: “Did you check for breathing?”
* Witness: “No.”
* Lawyer: “So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?”
* Witness: “No.”
* Lawyer: “How can you be so sure, Doctor?”
* Witness: “Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.”
* Lawyer: “But could the patient have still been alive nevertheless?”
* Witness: “Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere.”

* Lawyer: “How far apart were the vehicles at the time of the collision?”

* Lawyer: “And you check your radar unit frequently?”
* Officer: “Yes, I do.”
* Lawyer: “And was your radar unit functioning correctly at the time you had the plaintiff on radar?”
* Officer: “Yes, it was malfunctioning correctly.”

* Lawyer: “What happened then?”
* Witness: “He told me, he says, ‘I have to kill you because you can identify me.'”
* Lawyer: “Did he kill you?”
* Witness: “No.”

* Lawyer: “Now sir, I’m sure you are an intelligent and honest man–”
* Witness: “Thank you. If I weren’t under oath, I’d return the compliment.”

* Lawyer: “You were there until the time you left, is that true?”

* Lawyer: “So you were gone until you returned?”

* Lawyer: “The youngest son, the 20 year old, how old is he?”

* Lawyer: “Were you alone or by yourself?”

* Lawyer: “How long have you been a French Canadian?”

* Witness: “He was about medium height and had a beard.”
* Lawyer: “Was this a male or a female?”

* Lawyer: “Mr. Slatery, you went on a rather elaborate honeymoon, didn’t you?”
* Witness: “I went to Europe, sir.”
* Lawyer: “And you took your new wife?”

* Lawyer: “I show you Exhibit 3 and ask you if you recognize that picture.”
* Witness: “That’s me.”
* Lawyer: “Were you present when that picture was taken?”

* Lawyer: “Were you present in court this morning when you were sworn in?”

* Lawyer: “Do you know how far pregnant you are now?”
* Witness: “I’ll be three months on November 8.”
* Lawyer: “Apparently, then, the date of conception was August 8?”
* Witness: “Yes.”
* Lawyer: “What were you doing at that time?”

* Lawyer: “How many times have you committed suicide?”
* Witness: “Four times.”

* Lawyer: “Do you have any children or anything of that kind?”

* Lawyer: “She had three children, right?”
* Witness: “Yes.”
* Lawyer: “How many were boys?”
* Witness: “None.”
* Lawyer: “Were there girls?”

* Lawyer: “You don’t know what it was, and you didn’t know what it looked like, but can you describe it?”

* Lawyer: “You say that the stairs went down to the basement?”
* Witness: “Yes.”
* Lawyer: “And these stairs, did they go up also?”

* Lawyer: “Have you lived in this town all your life?”
* Witness: “Not yet.”

* Lawyer: (realizing he was on the verge of asking a stupid question) “Your Honor, I’d like to strike the next question.”

* Lawyer: “Do you recall approximately the time that you examined the body of Mr. Eddington at the Rose Chapel?”
* Witness: “It was in the evening. The autopsy started about 8:30pm.”
* Lawyer: “And Mr. Eddington was dead at the time, is that correct?”

* Lawyer: “What is your brother-in-law’s name?”
* Witness: “Borofkin.”
* Lawyer: “What’s his first name?”
* Witness: “I can’t remember.”
* Lawyer: “He’s been your brother-in-law for years, and you can’t remember his first name?”
* Witness: “No. I tell you, I’m too excited.” (rising and pointing to his brother-in-law) “Nathan, for heaven’s sake, tell them your first name!”

* Lawyer: “Did you ever stay all night with this man in New York?”
* Witness: “I refuse to answer that question.
* Lawyer: “Did you ever stay all night with this man in Chicago?”
* Witness: “I refuse to answer that question.
* Lawyer: “Did you ever stay all night with this man in Miami?”
* Witness: “No.”

* Lawyer: “Doctor, did you say he was shot in the woods?”
* Witness: “No, I said he was shot in the lumbar region.”

* Lawyer: “What is your marital status?”
* Witness: “Fair.”

* Lawyer: “Are you married?”
* Witness: “No, I’m divorced.”
* Lawyer: “And what did your husband do before you divorced him?”
* Witness: “A lot of things I didn’t know about.”

* Lawyer: “And who is this person you are speaking of?”
* Witness: “My ex-widow said it.

* Lawyer: “How did you happen to go to Dr. Cherney?”
* Witness: “Well, a gal down the road had had several of her children by Dr. Cherney and said he was really good.”

* Lawyer: “Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed on dead people?”
* Witness: “All my autopsies have been performed on dead people.”

* Lawyer: “Were you acquainted with the deceased?”
* Witness: “Yes sir.”
* Lawyer: “Before or after he died?”

* Lawyer: “Mrs. Jones, is your appearance this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?”
* Witness: “No. This is how I dress when I go to work.”

* The Court: “Now, as we begin, I must ask you to banish all present information and prejudice from your minds, if you have any.”

* Lawyer: “Did he pick the dog up by the ears?”
* Witness: “No.”
* Lawyer: “What was he doing with the dog’s ears?”
* Witness: “Picking them up in the air.”
* Lawyer: “Where was the dog at this time?”
* Witness: “Attached to the ears.”

* Lawyer: “And lastly, Gary, all your responses must be oral. Ok? What school do you go to?”
* Witness: “Oral.”
* Lawyer: “How old are you?”
* Witness: “Oral.”

* Lawyer: “What is your relationship with the plaintiff?”
* Witness: “She is my daughter.”
* Lawyer: “Was she your daughter on February 13, 1979?”

* Lawyer: “Now, you have investigated other murders, have you not, where there was a victim?”

* Lawyer: “Now, doctor, isn’t it true that when a person dies in his sleep, in most cases he just passes quietly away and doesn’t know anything about it until the next morning?”

* Lawyer: “And what did he do then?”
* Witness: “He came home, and next morning he was dead.”
* Lawyer: “So when he woke up the next morning he was dead?”

* Lawyer: “Did you tell your lawyer that your husband had offered you indignities?”
* Witness: “He didn’t offer me nothing. He just said I could have the furniture.”

* Lawyer: “So, after the anesthesia, when you came out of it, what did you observe with respect to your scalp?”
* Witness: “I didn’t see my scalp the whole time I was in the hospital.”
* Lawyer: “It was covered?”
* Witness: “Yes, bandaged.”
* Lawyer: “Then, later on…what did you see?”
* Witness: “I had a skin graft. My whole buttocks and leg were removed and put on top of my head.”

* Lawyer: “Could you see him from where you were standing?”
* Witness: “I could see his head.”
* Lawyer: “And where was his head?”
* Witness: “Just above his shoulders.”

* Lawyer: “Do you drink when you’re on duty?”
* Witness: “I don’t drink when I’m on duty, unless I come on duty drunk.”

* Lawyer: “Any suggestions as to what prevented this from being a murder trial instead of an attempted murder trial?”
* Witness: “The victim lived.”

* Lawyer: “The truth of the matter is that you were not an unbiased, objective witness, isn’t it? You too were shot in the fracas.”
* Witness: “No, sir. I was shot midway between the fracas and the naval.”

* Lawyer: “Officer, what led you to believe the defendant was under the influence?”
* Witness: “Because he was argumentary, and he couldn’t pronunciate his words.”

What is shocking.. nothing is new, it just the continuation of previous conspiracy so that he would not head EFCC..

. "A SOLEMN DECLARATION HONOURABLE COURT that all actions taken by the 3rd Defendant, especially charges and information filed in various courts, during the period when the 4th Defendant, Ibrahim Magu, acted in excess of his legal term as Acting Chairman thereof, are illegal, null, void and invalid."

That for me is the most important bit

Any actions being taken by Magu going forward will be rendered illegal

Anybody who is passionate about anti corruption should ask Magu to go because going forward the defendants will simply challenge the illegal occupation of office by Magu rather than defend their case.

The anti corruption campaign itself is at risk!