*How Lawyers fraustrate EFCC'S anti corruption battle*

In one of the cases I had against the EFCC, I was representing a man accused of defrauding a lady from the Netherlands. Apparently, this Dutch lady had a falling out with her Nigerian boyfriend, who relocated to Nigeria. She contacted the EFCC by phone. The EFCC coached her how to write a petition against the man, and how to embellish such petition. The lady wrote her petition claiming that the man promised her marriage and called it off after she had sent him a lot of money. In her petition, she referred to an attachment which was a breakdown of the monies she sent to him, dates and notes. That petition was translated into English Language. The attachment was also translated into English.

As I was preparing for trial the night before the date, I carefully read through the petition again. I could see the story did not add up. But when I was going through the attachment, I saw one line of footnote that was written in Dutch. I used my app to translate it to English. I got the message. But the fact remained that that part (one line of footnote) of the document was in a foreign language and was not translated into English as our Evidence Act required.

During trial, the EFCC lawyer tried to tend the petition and the attachment. I objected. The judge asked for my ground for objecting. I did not want to give my specific ground. Instead, I told the judge that the document they sought to tender did not conform with the requirement of the Evidence Act and thus should not be admitted. The judge pressed me to specify which section of the Evidence Act was violated. But I knew that if I were to tell the judge, it will alert the EFCC lawyer and they would quickly correct their mistake and try again to tender the document through their next witness. So, I did not reveal my ground at a time that the EFCC still had the opportunity to correct their mistake. I knew that the EFCC lawyer did not realize that footnotes are part of the document in which they appear and the language of the footnotes must also be translated into English. I knew they would think that one line of “useless footnote” would not make any difference.

This document was so important to their case. I knew that if that document was rejected by court, their case would fall apart like a pack of cards.

I waited until they had closed their case. There was no way they could correct their mistake. In the closing argument, I raised the issue again. I pointed out that their evidence must be rejected because it was written partly in a foreign language without English translation. They argued that it was “only a footnote”. I countered that it was part of the document. I argued that footnotes are so important because they explain the meaning of the main text, and the footnote must be in the language of the court, which was English. In fact, I asked the question: “What if the footnote is saying: ‘All that is on this document is untrue’” The footnote could actually have cancel everything in the document. So, it was an important part of the document and should have been in English language in order for it to be admissible into evidence and since it was not so-translated, it must be rejected. Indeed, without the footnote in English, the court could not be said to have read the entire document and it cannot reach a judgement based on a partial reading such important document. They put the footnote there because it was important for the understanding of the document. The court agreed. Their case failed again. It was beautiful, you know.

Copied

It's a norm

bilms:
*How Lawyers fraustrate EFCC'S anti corruption battle*

In one of the cases I had against the EFCC, I was representing a man accused of defrauding a lady from the Netherlands. Apparently, this Dutch lady had a falling out with her Nigerian boyfriend, who relocated to Nigeria. She contacted the EFCC by phone. The EFCC coached her how to write a petition against the man, and how to embellish such petition. The lady wrote her petition claiming that the man promised her marriage and called it off after she had sent him a lot of money. In her petition, she referred to an attachment which was a breakdown of the monies she sent to him, dates and notes. That petition was translated into English Language. The attachment was also translated into English.

As I was preparing for trial the night before the date, I carefully read through the petition again. I could see the story did not add up. But when I was going through the attachment, I saw one line of footnote that was written in Dutch. I used my app to translate it to English. I got the message. But the fact remained that that part (one line of footnote) of the document was in a foreign language and was not translated into English as our Evidence Act required.

During trial, the EFCC lawyer tried to tend the petition and the attachment. I objected. The judge asked for my ground for objecting. I did not want to give my specific ground. Instead, I told the judge that the document they sought to tender did not conform with the requirement of the Evidence Act and thus should not be admitted. The judge pressed me to specify which section of the Evidence Act was violated. But I knew that if I were to tell the judge, it will alert the EFCC lawyer and they would quickly correct their mistake and try again to tender the document through their next witness. So, I did not reveal my ground at a time that the EFCC still had the opportunity to correct their mistake. I knew that the EFCC lawyer did not realize that footnotes are part of the document in which they appear and the language of the footnotes must also be translated into English. I knew they would think that one line of “useless footnote” would not make any difference.

This document was so important to their case. I knew that if that document was rejected by court, their case would fall apart like a pack of cards.

I waited until they had closed their case. There was no way they could correct their mistake. In the closing argument, I raised the issue again. I pointed out that their evidence must be rejected because it was written partly in a foreign language without English translation. They argued that it was “only a footnote”. I countered that it was part of the document. I argued that footnotes are so important because they explain the meaning of the main text, and the footnote must be in the language of the court, which was English. In fact, I asked the question: “What if the footnote is saying: ‘All that is on this document is untrue’” The footnote could actually have cancel everything in the document. So, it was an important part of the document and should have been in English language in order for it to be admissible into evidence and since it was not so-translated, it must be rejected. Indeed, without the footnote in English, the court could not be said to have read the entire document and it cannot reach a judgement based on a partial reading such important document. They put the footnote there because it was important for the understanding of the document. The court agreed. Their case failed again. It was beautiful, you know.

Copied

Nice one! I don't see how the "Lawyers frustrated the EFCC's fight of Corruption," here.


What I saw was good Advocacy by the Defense Lawyer. He knows his job. The FRN(EFCC) Prosecutor should have done his homework well.


Sadly, they didn't and the smart lawyer won his client's case.


Whether or not the Defendant was guilty; and should have faced the wrath of the law, are different questions. And those should be answered by the FRN(EFCC) Attorneys, for a job badly done.

e go be them....charge n bail lawyers!

No comment, the Lawyer and the Judge should prepare for hell after death. Those technicalities are what the lawyers uses in frustrating EFCC cases. Believe me no court evidence is perfect, there will always be a loophole to squash it. But a sincere Judge would know how to help in bringing justice to the real criminal without been biased. Or else how do you discard a good evidence for a single foot note line writing in a known Language not of Alien in an unknown planet in this 21st century with all the technological solutions to problems. Believe me the Lawyer and the Judge must have settled to kill the case for EFCC, getting another criminal freed from his crime .

Fembleez1:




Nice one! I don't see how the "Lawyers frustrated the EFCC's fight of Corruption," here.


What I saw was good Advocacy by the Defense Lawyer. He knows his job. The FRN(EFCC) Prosecutor should have done his homework well.


Sadly, they didn't and the smart lawyer won his client's case.


Whether or not the Defendant was guilty; and should have faced the wrath of the law, are different questions. And those should be answered by the FRN(EFCC) Attorneys, for a job badly done.

Weldone devils advocate

Ok

Then, we simply improve our laws, and our investigation techniques and technology.

Lawyers have to do their jobs.

It is up to the law makers, and the police to up their game accordingly.

butterfly777:
Then, we simply improve our laws, and our investigation techniques and technology.

Lawyers have to do their jobs.

It is up to the law makers, and the police to up their game accordingly.

When will people realise that man does not have the ability to solve problems associated with living in this world?

How can man make a law that he is greater than and expect that that law will be greater than another man?

Can a car regulate and determine the activities of a man or can primary school student control a university graduate?

So also are man made laws for No creation can ever have power over its creators. Therefore, the laws Gazzuzz creates do not have power and can not have power over me or any other man.

But God's Laws called Natural Law are greater than all men on earth thus, every man bound is to obey it.

And it has regulated every activity of man past, present and future without the need of any alteration, amendment, repeal or reenactment!

Natural Law is the Supplier of All The Rules of Evidence beyond dispute and query and not the Powerless and ever insufficient false man made law called Evidence Act!

Beyond his person, goods and household (Personal laws) all of which the man is greater than, thus man ought not to make laws for his fellow man.

All he need do is to utilise The Law already made by The Maker of All man.

kolaaderin:
No comment, the Lawyer and the Judge should prepare for hell after death. Those technicalities are what the lawyers uses in frustrating EFCC cases. Believe me no court evidence is perfect, there will always be a loophole to squash it. But a sincere Judge would know how to help in bringing justice to the real criminal without been biased. Or else how do you discard a good evidence for a single foot note line writing in a known Language not of Alien in an unknown planet in this 21st century with all the technological solutions to problems. Believe me the Lawyer and the Judge must have settled to kill the case for EFCC, getting another criminal freed from his crime .

That is because lawyers have been deceived by their teachings that All Evidence Must Fall into the Requirements of their fake Evidence Act, whereas All Evidence are indeed Usable Evidence if Reasonably Admissible Under Natural Law!

False! No lawyer frustrate any EFCC instead but ironically the body is a cesspool of another unimaginable corruption in Nigeria given how the pattern of appointment of the leadership of that institution till date & how they ended.

The EFCC simply became independent but a willing bullying tool by successive governments in fighting real & imaginary enemies of such regimes.Imagine all the corruption allegations against Ibrahim Magu.

The expensive house he has been staying in Abuja courtesy of a corrupt kingpin undergoing investigation, the Magu's boys gang in the EFCC and how the seating top dog appointment was done.A man with moral baggage being made to head an organisation like the EFCC because of nepotism which is also corruption?

So spare us this crap of lawyers frustrating EFCC work because the body have repeatedly bungled cases it would have easily bootstrapped but lost same because of sensational media propaganda trial & institutional corruption.

Atiku lawyer was persecuted by the EFCC because of political considerations(who was later discharged and acquitted) but Bola Tinubu bullion vans petition was dismissed by Magu with impunity.You cant used corruption to fight corruption.

Hun

kolaaderin:
Weldone devils advocate

If you say so.



I'm tempted to not respond than the above. But I feel I should inform you there's a difference between Law and Morality. Yes, the defendant might be guilty or should be guilty. But will the defendant be left without a lawyer to defend him? Just because he is guilty or should be meant to face the wrath of the law? For the principle of Natural law must hold, and each party to the case must be heard, and given opportunity to defend himself. It is innate in human, the nature to always defend himself whether right or wrong.


So the defendant lawyer should help EFCC's lawyer? And not defend his client? Just because your moral view or religious view is overshadowing your sense of reasoning? And logic?


Even Jesus Christ was given the opportunity to defend himself in front of Pilate/High priest.


You go to court to argue cases based on fact, and of law. Tendering evidence and countering evidence. Accepting, Denying and Contending/Contesting!



If a person is contesting your ownership to a land and has papers/documents to back his claim, should we concede he owns the land truly, merely because he has papers? Without granting you or your lawyer the opportunity to prove your own ownership? Or to scrutinize his documents/papers/title to the land, that they might be forged?




With your moral and religious views sir, we should simply condemn every accused to death? Without granting them opportunity to defend their own case?



Loopholes are there in law for the Law makers to fill/rectify, or for opposing lawyers to use to help or destroy their case.

Fembleez1:



If you say so.



I'm tempted to not respond than the above. But I feel I should inform you there's a difference between Law and Morality. Yes, the defendant might be guilty or should be guilty. But will the defendant be left without a lawyer to defend him? Just because he is guilty or should be meant to face the wrath of the law? For the principle of Natural law must hold, and each party to the case must be heard, and given opportunity to defend himself. It is innate in human, the nature to always defend himself whether right or wrong.


So the defendant lawyer should help EFCC's lawyer? And not defend his client? Just because your moral view or religious view is overshadowing your sense of reasoning? And logic?


Even Jesus Christ was given the opportunity to defend himself in front of Pilate/High priest.


You go to court to argue cases based on fact, and of law. Tendering evidence and countering evidence. Accepting, Denying and Contending/Contesting!



If a person is contesting your ownership to a land and has papers/documents to back his claim, should we concede he owns the land truly, merely because he has papers? Without granting you or your lawyer the opportunity to prove your own ownership? Or to scrutinize his documents/papers/title to the land, that they might be forged?




With your moral and religious views sir, we should simply condemn every accused to death? Without granting them opportunity to defend their own case?



Loopholes are there in law for the Law makers to fill/rectify, or for opposing lawyers to use to help or destroy their case.

We are the problem of Nigeria

bilms:



We are the problem of Nigeria

Okay